Whether the suspect was informed at the time of questioning that the questioning was voluntary
Whether the suspect possessed unrestrained freedom of movement under questioning Whether the suspect initiated contact with authorities or voluntarily acquiesced to
official request to respond to questions
Whether strong arm techniques or deceptive strategies were used during the questioning
Whether the atmosphere of the questioning was police-dominated
Whether the suspect was placed under arrest at the termination of questioning 2. Interrogation
Interrogation is actual questioning OR its functional equivalent (statements or actions that a police officer knows is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response) Police must be interrogating a suspect (and have the suspect in custody) before the need
for Miranda warnings arises. Hypo
o Man walks into a police station and confesses to a murder. At trial, he claims that his confession can’t be used against him because he wasn’t read his Miranda warnings. What result?
The confession can be used because Miranda wasn’t violated. In order for Miranda warnings to be necessary, the suspect must be IN CUSTODY and subjected to INTERROGATION. There was no interrogation here; he just walked in and confessed!
An interrogation can also occur through police words or actions that police know may illicit a response; it doesn’t have to be ACTUAL questioning. See Innis.
1. In General
RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS (p. 730)
FACTS: Innis was a suspect in the murder of a cab driver. He was seen on the street and the officer arrested him; he was read Miranda warnings. Sergeant arrived and read warnings. The Captain arrived and Innis was again read his warnings. Respondent said he knew his rights and that he wanted to speak with a lawyer. On the way to the police station, officers in the car were talking about how they wish they knew where the gun was because there was a school for handicapped children nearby and they didn’t want the children to get hurt if they found the gun. Innis
interrupted the conversation and said he’d tell them where it was. He moved to suppress the gun claiming that this was an interrogation and that it was improper because he was “interrogated” without getting to speak with a lawyer, as he requested.
ISSUE: Was the respondent “interrogated,” therefore requiring Miranda warnings?
HOLDING: No. He wasn’t interrogated and therefore no Miranda warnings had to be given.
REASONING: Miranda stated that “interrogation” meant “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom to move. Court decided not to interpret Miranda so narrowly and held that the main concern in Miranda was the “interrogation environment.” An interrogation can occur through questioning or any words or actions of a police officer that the police will know may illicit a response. There was no need for the police to think that Innis would interrupt the conversation. They did not invite any response from the defendant.
THE TEST: Whether an average suspect would have been concerned with the welfare of the children.
Most suspects wouldn’t have cared, so it’s irrelevant that Innis actually cares
RULE: Police words and actions that the police know are likely to elicit an incriminating response is considered interrogation; interrogation is not limited to actual questioning.
Application of Innis: Arizona v. Mauro
Arizona v. Mauro- Interrogation not found when officers listened to a conversation between defendant and his wife. Officers arrived at a store and Mauro freely admitted that he killed his son and directed officers to the body. He was arrested and given two set of Miranda warnings. After the second set, he indicated that he didn’t want to say anything else without speaking to a lawyer. Mrs. Mauro was being questioned separately. They asked to speak to each other and were told they only could if the police were able to listen; they were aware that a tape recorder was in the room. He said something incriminating. Court concluded that an interrogation did not occur. There was no evidence that the officers sent Mrs. Mauro in there to obtain evidence against her husband. “Officers do not interrogate a suspect simply by hoping that he will incriminate himself.”
o Innis- “any words or actions from the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” But the Court held that the action of letting him speak to his wife wasn’t interrogation; not sufficient.
United States v. Calisto- no interrogation found when officers told defendant that they’d also get an arrest warrant for th edefendant’s daughter. Drugs had been found in a bedroom where both men’s and women’s clothes were found. Defendant responded by saying “Keep her out of this, she ahs nothing to do with this stuff.”
o Not an interrogation because even though officers could have reasonably expected a protest from the defendant, they couldn’t reasonably expect him to incriminate himself.
2. Confronting the Suspect with Incriminating Evidence
Edwards v. Arizona- Edwards was interrogated when officers played a recorded statement of Edwards’ associate that implicated Edwards in the crime.
People v. Fero- interrogation occurred when officers placed the fruits of the crime in front of Fero’s jail cell.
Some lower courts disagree with Edwards- held that presenting a suspect with incriminating evidence doesn’t amount to an interrogation
3. Direct vs. Indirect Statements
When the officers are speaking among themselves and the suspect starts talking, its less likely to be an interrogation
When the officer speaks directly to the suspect, it’s more likely to be an interrogation 4. The “Booking Exception”- Questions Attendant to Custody ARE NOT INTERROGATIONS!
Pennsylvania v. Muniz- defendant’s responses to preliminary questions of his age and other information were admitted as evidence of drunkness. Miranda didn’t apply because questions about information needed for booking procedures do not require Miranda warnings.
5. Undercover Activity
Illinois v. Perkins- incriminating statement made to an undercover police officer was admissible. Miranda’s goal isn’t to protect suspects from bragging about their criminal activity to people they think are their cellmates.
o Established a bright-line rule: If there is an undercover investigation, Miranda does not apply
6. Custodial Interrogation of Foreigners Abroad
Terrorist suspect was given Miranda warnings while being interrogated abroad. The Advice of Rights form states that he had a right to counsel if he were being questioned in the US. He was warned that because they were abroad, they couldn’t ensure that an attorney would be appointed for him.
Held that the confession was properly admitted. Waiver
Waiver of rights must be knowing and voluntary 1. Waiver and the Role of Counsel
The fact that a confession was eventually obtained does not mean that the suspect waived his rights
North Carolina v. Butler- an express statement or a waiver isn’t required. Whether a suspect waived his rights will depend on the circumstances of the situation. The government needs to show sufficient evidence that the suspect understood his rights and voluntarily waived them.
2. Knowing and Voluntary
Moran v. Burbine- two requirements for a suspect to be found to have voluntarily waived his rights.
1. Must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.
2. Must have been made with full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it
3. Relationship of Waiver Standards to the Test for Voluntary Confessions
A waiver that is validly made may still render a confession inadmissible if it is the result of overbearing police pressure after the waiver of rights.
Colorado v. Connelly- coercive police activity is a prerequisite to a finding that a confession is involuntary.
4. Understanding the Miranda Warnings
A person with a low IQ or who is disabled may not have the capacity to give a valid waiver of rights
A suspect who does not understand English may not be able to give a valid waiver SUBJECTIVE standard is used to determine if the suspect actually understood. Look at
whether the suspect actually understood, not if we would think he understood. 5. Conditional Waivers
Connecticut v. Barrett- Barrett said he’d speak about a sexual assault, but did not want to give a written statement. Court held that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. He was aware that the oral confession could have been used against him, and he chose to speak anyways. The Court said that if he was under the impression that his words could not be used, the waiver would have been invalid. But that wasn’t the case here! 6. Scope of the Interrogation
Spring was arrested for trying to sell stolen firearms. He was also suspected of murder. He was questioned about the firearms first and then a murder. He was read rights and signed a waiver. Spring argued that he didn’t waive his Miranda rights about the shooting because the agents didn’t warn him he would be asked about that. Court held that a suspect doesn’t need to be aware of all of the subjects that he may be questioned about. The waiver was held valid and the Court could use the statements about the shooting.
o Spring also argued that the police tricked him into answering questions about the shooting. The Court said they didn’t; the police didn’t misrepresent
7. Admissibility of a Previous Confession
Oregon v. Elstad- Elstad gave a Miranda defective confession. He was then read his rights, signed a waiver, and confessed again. He argued that the waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently. He said he thought that the prior confession could be used against him.
o Court rejected his argument; the subsequent statement could be used against him. The fact that he confessed the second time only because the thought the first statements could be used is irrelevant.
8. Efforts of a Lawyer Trying to Contact the Suspect
Moran v. Burbine- Burbine waived his rights and confessed to murder. His sister attempted to retain a lawyer to represent him. The lawyer called the police station and was told that Burbine would not be questioned until the next day. His confession was still valid because he wasn’t aware of the attorney. It couldn’t have had any bearing on his decision to confess. “Once is it determined that a suspect’s decision not to rely on his rights was uncoerced . . .
the waiver is valid as a matter of law.”
The police’s deliberate action of preventing contact did not affect the validity of the waiver. 9. Abstract Right to Counsel
Connecticut v. Stoddard- a waiver cannot e knowing if a suspect is unaware of a lawyer’s attempt to contact him. Rejected Burbine.
10. Waiver and the Invocation of the Right to Silence
Michigan v. Mosley- defendant was arrested and chose to remain silent about a robbery charge. An hour later he was read Miranda rights again and answered questions about murder. The murder statements were used to convict him. The Court held that the admission of the second statements did not violate Miranda. Interrogation is not forever barred simply because the defendant invoked his right to silence at some point.
The most important factor is whether the officers gave the suspect a “cooling off” period. Revocation of the Right of Silence
o Davis v. United States- if the suspect makes an ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel, the police can continue interrogation.
o United States v. Banks- officer’s don’t have to honor a defendants right to remain silent unless the defendant made it clear that he wished to remain silent.
11. Invocation of the Right to Counsel
Additional saeguards are necessary hen the accused asks for an attorney. Edwards v. Arizona
Once an attorney is requested, police can’t interrogate further unless the attorney is there or if defendant initiates the conversation
Relationship between Edwards and Innis
Edwards holds that a suspect cannot waive the right to counsel after invoking it, unless he initiates the conversation. But if police-renewed conversation does not rise to the level of custodial interrogation, Miranda itself doesn’t apply to the resulting confession, and therefore Edwards doesn’t either
If the suspect invokes his right to counsel, Edwards holds that the police may not interrogate him while in custody unless the suspect initiates the conversation and then knowingly and voluntarily waives his rights.
Defining Initiation
Oregon v. Bradshaw- a simple request (asking for water, etc.) will not be considered “initiating.” but when suspects asked “what’s going to happen to me now” and the officer and defendant had a conversation about where he was being taken and the charges against him, court found that he waived his right to counsel. He agreed to a lie detector test that the officer suggested.
Two step analysis to determine whether a suspect waives his rights after invoking the right to counsel”
o The bright-line prophylactic safeguard of the suspect-initiation requirement; o Totality of the circumstances test of a knowing and voluntary waiver.
Burden remains on the prosecutor to show a waiver Ambiguous Invocation of the right to counsel
Defendant must clearly and unequivocally invoke the right to counsel in order to trigger Edwards protections
Unrelated Crimes
Arizona v. Roberson- once a defendant invokes 5th Amendment rights, the police may not question him about ANY crime; the 5th Amendment is not offense specific
Waiver After Speaking with Counsel
Minnick v. Mississippi- the protection of Edwards continues even after a suspect consults with an attorney; the police may still not question him.
How long does the right to invoke last?
Maryland v. Shatzer- the right to envoke doesn’t last forever. He had a 2 week break between his arrest and questioning
Hypo- Defendant is arrest in NY and envokes right to counsel. He’s released. 10 days later, he’s arrested in NJ. He was Mirandized and answered questions. Is the waiver still valid?
o Government will say that speaking to the police after being informed of his rights was a voluntary waiver
o Defendant will say that it was less than 2 weeks and that coercion was still possible even though it was a different jurisdiction
Confessions and 6th Amendment Right to Counsel
6th Amendment only applies after formal proceedings have begun
The 6th Amendment prohibits a government official from “Deliberately eliciting” incriminating information from an “accused” in the absence of counsel or a waiver. MASSIAH V. UNITED STATES (p. 697)
FACTS: Massiah was charged for possession of narcotics. He had retained a lawyer and was
released on bail. His accomplice decided to cooperate with the police. Colson was wiretapped and obtained incriminating statements from Massiah, which were used to convict him.
ISSUE: Was it proper to use a confession made by Massiah that was made while not in the presence of his attorney?
HOLDING: No.
REASONING: Unlike the 5th Amendment, Massiah’s goal isn’t to protect against police-created pressure to confess. Massiah wants the focus that once a defendant is indicted, the adversary system begins. It’s similar to the rule that once a client has an attorney, they should only be contacted through that attorney.
BREWER V. WILLIAMS (p. 771) (Christian Burial Case)
FACTS: Williams was arrested in Davenport on an arrest warrant for abduction. McKnight, his attorney in Des Moines, spoke with the police and told them that Williams was in Davenport and would be turning himself in to the police there. Williams also consulted with an attorney in Davenport, who told him not to speak with the police until he got to Des Moines and spoke with McKnight. The police were aware of this advice from both McKnight and Kelly. On the way to Des Moines, the officer told Williams how it would be good for the family to find their daughter, who was kidnapped on Christmas Eve, so that they could give her a proper Christian burial. Williams eventually led the police to the body.
ISSUE: Did the police officer’s conversation with Williams in the car violate Williams’ right to counsel?
HOLDING: Yes.
RULE: Once adversary proceedings begin, the suspect’s right not to be contacted without his attorney present immediately is present. The 6th Amendment right to counsel attaches only after adversarial proceedings have begun.
A. What is “deliberate elicitation?
Bey v. Morton- Bey was on death row and confessed to the murders of two women (the crime he was on death row for) to a corrections officer that he befriended. Convictions were later reversed and a new trial occurred. Corrections officer testified. Court held that the 6th Amendment wasn’t violated because although the officer was a state official, his job was not to secure information from the defendant for the purpose of obtaining a
conviction. Officer didn’t say anything about the confession for 5 years and didn’t want to testify. The state’s receipt of the confession was not by any deliberate action to obtain its use to convict him.
Informants
The use of an informant constitutes deliberate elicitation
A “listening post” informant is not deliberate elicitation because they’re just listening. Unlike the 5th Amendment, where the use of an informant is not interrogation. Waiver of 6th Amendment Protections
Brewer v. Williams- held that the government must show more than the fact that the defendant received warnings and elected to speak; this alone is not sufficient to show that he waived his right to counsel.
Patterson v. Illinois- Patterson argued that the Miranda warnings didn’t give him a full
understanding of his right to counsel under the 6th amendment, and that his waiver should be deemed invalid. Court diagreed. Said that he didn’t offer any additional statements that would have helped him understand, and that the officers conveyed the sum and substance of the 6th Amendment to him. Distinguished from Faretta because the right to counsel at trial is more serious- it’s more serious to make sure that a defendant is aware of what he is waiving when he says he agrees to go pro se at trial.
MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA (p. 788)
FACTS: Monetejo didn’t expressly state that he wanted a lawyer, but the court appointed on for him. In the absence of counsel, he agreed to go with police officers on an excursion to locate the murder weapon. He wrote an inculpatory letter of apology to the victim’s widow.
RULE: After a defendant envokes his 6th Amendment right to counsel, police may still approach the defendant to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver. The 6th Amendment is violated if a waiver of counsel is coerced, but not if it is voluntary.
NOTE: Edwards only applies to custodial interrogation. If D asks for a lawyer for the 6th Amendment, the police can still seek a waiver.