Supreme Court Diminishes Protections Afforded by Miranda Rules
The United States Supreme Court recently handed down a decision which fundamentally diminishes the protections afforded to suspects by well-established Miranda Rules. These rules, which are famously characterized by the "you have the right to remain silent" warning read to criminal defense suspects who are under arrest, serve to protect the due process rights of the accused.
Since Miranda warnings became mandatory, law enforcement has been required to read suspects their rights before they may be taken into custody and interrogated. The ruling, which was decided by a 6-to-3 vote, states that "custody" is a relative term that can be used differently in each situation.
The case before the Supreme Court involved an already-incarcerated inmate, who when taken from his cell and interrogated, confessed to a sex crime that he was not being held for, without being read his Miranda warnings. Though he had been told at one point that he could return to his cell, he was certainly not free to leave protective custody during the interrogation.
Lawyers representing the inmate insisted that because he was being held in custody, he should have been read his rights before being interrogated. The Supreme Court held that, although the length, location and tone of the questions may have felt as if he was being held in custody, the fact that he was told he was "free to go" meant that he was not being held and thus did not have to be Mirandized. The confession was thus ruled admissible.
Opponents of the holding believe that the Court is stripping the accused and the convicted of their long-established rights. The Miranda warnings became law in 1966, and have safeguarded criminals from forced confessions and coerced interrogations since that time.
Without these warnings, arrestees and incarcerated inmates subject to interrogation will assume that they are required to comply with questioning even though their answers may incriminate them. Many think this ruling will encourage law enforcement to be "creative" in the way they question inmates. More law enforcement will fail to Mirandize suspects in order to obtain confessions.
Any person who is being interrogated is free to ask for representation at any time during questioning and to refuse to answer questions until his or her representation arrives. If you or a loved one believes that your rights may have been infringed upon due to inadequate Miranda warning notice, please contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to explore your legal options.