In Miranda v. Arizona, The United States Supreme Court expanded the Fifth and Sixth Amendment by formulating something called the Miranda warning. The Miranda rights are interpreted from the Fifth Amendment’s right against compelled self-incrimination and from the Sixth Amendments right to an attorney. As the warning is stated by the police, the words are meant to put the suspect at notice of his or her Constitutional rights. However, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment is enforceable only against government actors and Miranda rights are only applicable when the suspect is being interrogated in custody— the police exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty. The warning must be given by the government actors--usually law enforcement agencies such as the police, FBI, or even the IRS--prior to the interrogation. For every jurisdiction, it is somewhat different, but the idea is the same. The usual Miranda warning states:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand these rights?”
The most important part of the Miranda analysis is what happens if the police fail to “Mirandize”--read the suspect the Miranda warning? A Miranda violation. However, The United States Supreme Court has well established that the only redress allowed to the accused after a Miranda violation is the chance to suppress all the evidence that arises from the interrogation. This means that anything the suspect said or admitted without being Mirandized when in custody cannot be used by the government to prove his criminal conduct. The beauty of it is that any evidence that stemmed from the evidence obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used. Thus, if the suspect admitted to using the car parked on the next street to commit the crime in question, then the car and any evidence that stems from it must be suppressed and cannot be used. The Supreme Court calls this the fruits of the poisonous tree. If the tree, the evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is poisonous, then the fruits are as well.
Off course, with every rule there are its exceptions. With Miranda, The United States Supreme Court has crafted many exceptions since its inception. One exception is that the prosecutor can use the evidence for the purpose of shining negative light upon the accused’s character as a witness in court. Another exception is if the police collect the evidence in question from an independent source, then it can be used to prove the accused criminal conduct. You can see how everyone can get creative.
In conclusion, Miranda violations are not automatic dismissals of the accused case; however, the violation offers the accused a chance to suppress evidence that the police collected, thus making it tougher on the prosecutor to prove the accused criminal conduct.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website.
Click here to learn more about a Petty Theft, PC § 484 or PC § 488, click here.
Click here to learn more about DUI, PC § 23152, click here.
Click here to learn more about Drug Possession, HSC § 11365
Click here to learn more about a Petty Theft, PC § 484 or PC § 488, click here.
Click here to learn more about DUI, PC § 23152, click here.
Click here to learn more about Drug Possession, HSC § 11365
