MBE questions about Miranda almost always involve whether a statement the defendant made to the police will be admissible.
What Are The Miranda Warnings?
If Miranda warnings are required, the individual must be clearly informed that:
- They have the right to remain silent, and anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.
- They have the right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed to them.
When Are Miranda Warnings Required?
Whether Miranda warnings are required is often the issue in MBE questions about this subject, and the answer simply comes down to two elements: custody and interrogation. Both elements must be present for Miranda warnings to be necessary. Let’s examine each:
Custody: Miranda Warnings are only required if the individual is in custody. Custody means that an objectively reasonable person in that position would not feel free to leave.
Interrogation: If the individual is in custody, Miranda warnings must be given prior to the start of any sort of interrogation. Interrogation involves questions, statements, or actions the police know, or should know, are likely to elicit an incriminating response from the individual in custody.
Putting it together:
When the defendant has made an incriminating statement to the police and he wants the statement barred because he was not given Miranda warnings, we simply need to answer two questions: A) Was the defendant in custody? And B) If so, was the incriminating statement made by the defendant the result of police interrogation?
If the answer to BOTH questions is yes, Miranda warnings were required. Therefore the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been violated, and the incriminating statement will be thrown out. If the answer to either question is no, Miranda warnings were not required and the incriminating statement will be admissible. That’s it and that’s all.
Example 1: I’m standing on a street corner selling pirated copies of the movie Step Brothers when I’m spotted by two police officers. They place me under arrest, handcuff me, and put me in the back of the police car. One of the officers then says to me, “you’re the one who’s been making illegal copies of the movie Step Brothers, aren’t you?” I sigh and reply, “Yes, you got me.” Is my admission likely to be admissible? NO.
Analysis: We simply need to ask ourselves the two key questions discussed above: A) Was I in custody? And B) If so, was my incriminating statement the result of interrogation? If the answer to both questions is yes, Miranda warnings were required and my statement will be thrown out.
First, I was clearly in custody. I was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the police car. An objectively reasonable person in this situation would not feel free to leave (in fact it was not even physically possible for me to leave).
Second, my incriminating statement was definitely the result of an interrogation. The police officer clearly knew, or should have known, that this was the type of question that was likely to elicit an incriminating response from me, so his question was an interrogation. My incriminating statement was also in direct response to this interrogation. As such, the officers were required to give me Miranda warnings prior to this question. They failed to do so, and therefore my incriminating statement will be thrown out.
Example 2: I’m standing on a street corner selling pirated copies of the movie Step Brothers when I’m approached by a police officer. Suspicious that I might be engaging in illegal activity, the officers says, “hello sir, are you doing anything illegal here?” I sigh and reply, “yes, you got me, I’m selling pirated copies of Step Brothers.” Is my admission of guilt likely to be admissible? YES.
Analysis: The question by the officer was an interrogation. “Hello sir, are you doing anything illegal here?” is a question that the officer knew, or at least should have known, was likely to elicit an incriminating response. Furthermore, my statement was in direct response to the officer’s question. As such, my admission of guilt was the result of a police interrogation, so this element is satisfied.
However, I was likely not in custody here. I was not placed under arrest, my movement was not restricted or blocked in any way, and the interaction was relatively nonthreatening. It seems that a reasonable person likely would have felt free to leave.
As such, Miranda warnings were not required. Remember, Miranda warnings are only required when a suspect is BOTH: A) in custody AND B) his statement is the result of police interrogation. Requirement B was met (my statement was the result of police interrogation), but requirement A was not (I was not in custody because a reasonable person would have felt free to leave). Therefore my statement is admissible and I will be unsuccessful in attempting to have it suppressed.
Volunteered Statements
Because Miranda is only applicable to statements by the defendant that are the result of interrogation, volunteered statements made by the defendant ARE admissible without Miranda warnings.
Example: I’m selling counterfeit tickets to a Taylor Swift concert outside of the venue when I’m spotted by two police officers. They place me under arrest and handcuff me. As they are putting me in the back of the police car I blurt out, “you got me, I was selling counterfeit tickets.” Is my admission of guilt likely to be admissible, even though Miranda warnings were not given? YES.
Analysis: Once again let’s address the two key questions. First, I was clearly in custody as I was placed under arrest and handcuffed. A reasonable person would not feel free to leave in this situation. This element has been met.
However, my incriminating statement was volunteered. I made it on my own, and it was not in response to police interrogation of any kind. Our second element has not been met. Therefore the fact that Miranda warnings were not given does not matter, and my statement will be admissible.
Automobile Stops and Miranda
One more wrinkle to be aware of is that drivers who are pulled over for traffic stops are not considered to be in custody for the purposes of Miranda. I’m mentioning this because it might be a little bit counterintuitive to you (at least it is for me). Personally I don’t really feel free to leave while being pulled over by some intimidating state trooper with large sunglasses, but that’s completely irrelevant for the MBE exam. What matters is that traffic stops are not considered custodial, and therefore Miranda Warnings are not required before interrogation in these situations.
Example: While driving home from a Taylor Swift concert I’m pulled over for having a broken taillight. The officer approaches the window and says, “Good evening sir, do you happen to be under the influence of methamphetamine right now?” I respond, “Yes sir, what’s a Taylor Swift concert without some methamphetamine?” Is my statement admissible despite the fact that I was not given Miranda warnings prior to the officer’s question? YES.
Analysis: Examining our two key elements again, we can see that the question by the officer was clearly an interrogation, and my admission was a result of that interrogation. However, I was not in custody because because traffic stops are not considered custodial, and therefore Miranda does not apply. My statement will be admissible.
Understand
- Miranda warnings are only required when an individual is in custody and subject to interrogation.
- Custody means that an objectively reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
- Interrogation involves questions, statements, or actions that the police know, or should know, will elicit an incriminating response.
- If the defendant is in custody AND the incriminating statement he makes is the result of interrogation, the statement will be thrown out if Miranda warnings were not given.
- Volunteered statements made by the defendant that are not in response to an interrogation are admissible without Miranda warnings (regardless of whether the defendant is in custody).
- Drivers who are pulled over for traffic stops are not considered to be in custody. Miranda warnings are not necessary, and incriminating statements made by the driver (or passengers) will be admissible even if they were the result of interrogation.
Please feel free, as always, to leave a comment if you have any thoughts or questions, and best of luck.