Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
Key Takeaways
- Miranda rights protect us by requiring a police rights warning before in custody questioning.
- If police violate your Miranda rights the court may suppress statements.
- Assert your right to silence and request an attorney before speaking to police.
- Waiving your Miranda rights makes you vulnerable to a false prosecution.
- For Miranda rights issues seek legal counsel.
“What if police don’t read my Miranda rights?”
Why are Miranda rights important? What are they? And how can your criminal defense attorney help you if police violate your Miranda rights? If police violate your Miranda rights when questioning you “in custody,” then a judge can suppress the statements you made after the violation. But what does that mean, exactly? Read on.
The Miranda case: The United States Supreme Court took an important step towards reducing wrongful convictions of innocent people in 1966. The case, Miranda v. Arizona, requires police to provide a basic rights warning before asking questions of a suspect in custody.
“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (US Supreme Court 1966)
Today if police fail to give a required Miranda warning, a judge may suppress any later statements.
Let’s take a look at some of the fundamentals of a Miranda violation by police.
What triggers right to Miranda warning?
- Police or other government actors (state action).
- Are questioning.
- A person “in custody.”
If all three conditions exist, police must give a Miranda warning to the person in custody. And what if they don’t?
The Remedy
If the police don’t give a required Miranda rights warning, so what? What’s the legal remedy?
Without an enforceable remedy, there is no right. Normally the remedy is what lawyers call the exclusionary rule. The judge suppresses any confessions, admissions or other statements that police obtain by violating Miranda rights. And, the judge may suppress evidence derived from those illegal statements, as “the fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The prosecuting attorney cannot use any statement the court suppresses for a Miranda violation, as part of the government’s case-in-chief. And the prosecutor can’t use it to support probable cause for the charge or Complaint.
So far, so good? Sure. But if the defendant exercises her “right” to testify, then the prosecutor can use her illegally obtained statement to impeach her. So, the exclusionary rule is really only partial suppression.
Understanding the Why
Why do the Courts allow the prosecutor to benefit from evidence resulting from a Miranda rights violation? To understand their reasoning, look at the primary public policy behind the Supreme Court’s Miranda decision: to deter police misconduct.
The courts’ view is that the exclusionary rule remedy, though partial, is enough to deter police misconduct. So, preventing government use of illegally obtained statements to support probable cause and its “prima facie” case, is enough.
Compare this to the stronger, older Common Law remedy that we still have today for involuntary statements. Once a judge Orders a defendant’s involuntary statement suppressed, the prosecuting attorney cannot use it for any purpose. The prosecutor can’t even use it to impeach the Defendant exercising her right to testify.
The legal remedy for an involuntary statement is complete suppression. Why? The public policy for suppressing involuntary statements is not deterrence of police misconduct. Rather, the purpose is to increase reliability of verdicts by keeping out unreliable evidence. Involuntary statements are too unreliable and untrustworthy.
Good legal hygiene
If questioned by police, what should you do?
When police could view you as a possible target in a criminal investigation, you should assert your:
- right to silence, as well as your,
- right to have an attorney present during questioning.
(Notice that two phrases in the Miranda rights warning refer to these to two vital Constitutional rights.)
Timing: Most people lack experience with police. As a result, they fail to properly interpret what is happening until it’s over and too late. Therefore, err on the side of caution. And refuse to answer police questions if there is any chance they could see you as a person of interest.
After all, you can always make a statement later, at any point in the future — after consulting your lawyer. But, once words come out of your mouth, too late, you can never take them back.
Not saying anything in the first place is one thousand times better than your lawyer trying to suppress your statement later. Even if successful, the suppression may be partial as in the case of the exclusionary rule.
Waiver of Miranda rights
After you invoke your Miranda rights, police may want you to waive Miranda rights.
To waive is to give up or surrender. You wouldn’t waive the title to your house or car would you? Your right to remain silent is more valuable. So, never waive your rights.
Silence cannot lie: Why would an innocent person choose to wait to consult an attorney before making a statement to police? Because an innocent person has more to lose by making a statement to police without the benefit of legal counsel. Why? Because if a guilty person makes statement to police, they merely increase their chance of being charged with a crime.
On the other hand, when an innocent person makes a statement, they not only increase their chance of being charged with a crime; they also invite the injustice of an innocent person being charged with a crime. The best way to prevent both is to remain silent until after fully consulting a criminal defense attorney.
Here police sometimes play with the technicalities of the Miranda case. For example, police may say things in front of the suspect to other police, to bait the suspect. Or, police pretend resignation: “this was your chance to tell your side of the story.” Whatever the bait, pause, then don’t take it.
And sometimes, police cross the line and use coercive tactics to get a waiver of Miranda rights. When they do, your defense lawyer may be able to get a judge to suppress those statements. But, prevention is far better than any cure.
Question? Call Lawyer Thomas Gallagher, 612 333-1500
Did police violate your Miranda rights? Perhaps they did not read a Miranda rights warning after questioning you in custody. Or, perhaps your waiver of your rights was not “knowing, intelligent or voluntary?”
Apart from Miranda law, perhaps your confession or statement was involuntary?
If so, your defense attorney should review the facts; and prepare motion to suppress the statement. And a judge will hear that motion at a Contested Omnibus Hearing.
If the judge agrees, the illegal statements will be partially or fully suppressed. And that will help your criminal defense attorney either win your trial, or negotiate a deal more to your liking.
Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas Gallagher’s three decades experience in confessions law can benefit you. He teaches law classes on the subject to police officers, other lawyers and judges. The legal community views him as an expert on the topic.
What about you? Would you like Attorney Thomas Gallagher to help you with your case?
More: Miranda rights
Involuntary Statements suppression
Police Investigation
Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Evidence
Contested Omnibus motions hearing
Criminal Defenses in Minnesota
How to Assert Your Rights: Protect Yourself from Police