Chapter 18-What constitutes interrogation for Miranda purposes Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 18-What constitutes interrogation for Miranda purposes > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 18-What constitutes interrogation for Miranda purposes Deck (10)
Loading flashcards...

Miranda must be given whenever

there is a custodial interrogation


Custodial means

person under arrest or deprived of freedom in a significant way


interrogation means

suspect is asked questions by the police that tend to link the suspect to a crime


there are instances in which police must give the Miranda warning even if no actual interrrogation or questioning takes place. Case that set this rule is

Brewer v Williams, 1977
more known as the "christian burial " case.
Court ruled that police must give Miranda even if no questioning takes place if the behavior of the police constitutes the "functional equivalent" of an interrogation , meaning that the behavior is likely to elicit a confession even in the absence of questioning.


under the Miranda rule, interrogations can by "actual" (when questions are asked) or the "functional equivalent" thereof.

Brewer v Williams, 1977
10 yr old girl disappeared from YMCA. Williams was given the "Christian burial " speech. court held that the police did in talking ws "functional equivalent" to interrogating the suspect.


two important principles for the police in Williams:

1. once a suspect has been formally charged with an offense and has a lawyer, he should not be interrogated unless there is a valid waiver
2. that conversation with or appeals to the suspect that may induce a confession constitutes an interrogation that then requires both Miranda and right to counsel.


Conversation in this case was merely a dialog between police and did not constitute the "functional equivalent" of an interrogation, hence no Miranda warning were needed.

Rhode Island v Innis, 1980
police arrested Innis for the abduction and killing of a taxicab driver. Innis Mirandized and wanted an attorney. during transport, officers talked between themselves about the concern that children might find the weapon and hurt themselves. Innis interrupted the conver and showed them where weapon was. Not a violation.


A conversation between a suspect and his wife, which was recorded in the presence of an officer, did not constitute the "functional equivalent" of an interrogation.

Arizona v Mauro, 1987
man entered a store claiming that he killed his son. Mauro arrested and mirandized. Mauro wanted an attorney. Mauro's wife insisted on speaking with Mauro. Police allowed on one condition, the conversation would be recorded. Tape used to impeach Mauro's contention that he was insane at time of murder. Evidence admissible.


Statements compelled by police interrogation may not be used against a defendant in a criminal case, but it is not until such use that the self-incrimination clause is violated.

Chavez v Martinez, 2004
Martinez in hospital after being shot by police. officer chavez at hospital and questioned Martinez without mirandizing him. Statements obtained by Chavez was not used in a criminal trial. Martinez filed a 1983 suit against Chavez. Court held that it is not until such use that self-incrimination clause is violated. Therefore police are not liable in Sec 1983 .


Martinez case is best understood as a Section 1983 civil liability case for a possible violation of a suspects constitutional right

Chavez v Martinez