Police Magazine
MENU
SEARCHMENUSEARCH
The U.S. Supreme Court has expanded Miranda rights for juveniles, issuing a 5-4 decision stemming from a case involving North Carolina officers who had questioned a 13-year-old.
Read More →
"Interrogation" has been defined by the Supreme Court to include both direct questioning and its "functional equivalent." What does this term mean? Three Supreme Court cases and numerous decisions from the federal appeals court have considered this question.
Read More →
The Constitution does not forbid you to talk to a person just because that person has an attorney, or just because the attorney tells you not to do it. Instead, the law focuses on whether the suspect is willing to talk without his or her attorney present.
Read More →
If a suspect wants to assert either his right to counsel or his right to silence, it is up to him to do so, unequivocally and unambiguously.
Read More →
This significant new decision firmly establishes that once a suspect has received the Miranda warnings and indicates that he understands his rights, officers are not required to ask whether he wishes to waive or invoke but may simply start asking questions about the case.
Read More →
The court said the suspect had the duty to invoke his rights. If he failed to do so, his later words could be used to convict him, the justices said.
Read More →
Miranda warnings are triggered by a simple formula: Custody + Interrogation = The requirement for Miranda warnings. A motorist is not in "custody" for Miranda purposes when he or she is detained for an ordinary traffic stop.
Read More →
The genesis of the Miranda warnings can be traced to March 13, 1963, when Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested by officers of the Phoenix Police Department for stealing $4 from a bank worker and for the kidnap and rape of another woman.
Read More →
The Edwards rule applies to all officers and all cases - not just to the case on which the suspect invoked the right to counsel.
Read More →
One indication of the enduring misunderstanding of the Miranda jurisprudence is the fact that after 44 years, state and federal courts continue to litigate the adequacy of dozens of variations of the particular wording used by officers - and continue to get reversed by the Supreme Court.
Read More →