Miranda

No supreme court decision has caused the level of misunderstanding, conflicting interpretations, and misapplication than Miranda v. Arizona. In its basic form, the decision held a person in police custody must be read a statement advising the person they don't have to talk to the police, and they can have a lawyer before and during any questioning by the police. Seems simple enough, don't you think?

But, wait!....Now we have to discuss what is "questioning"?, and What is "custody"? And, is the questioning being done by "police"?

In Miranda, the court said the rights Miranda protected were constitutionally protected rights....but, the court referred to that decisions and its application as a protective measure only, and the failure to advise a person of their so-called Miranda rights was not a constitutional deprivation.

In the 1970's, the California Supreme Court ruled that Miranda applies anytime the "focus" of a criminal investigation identified a suspect. "Custody" was unimportant. I recall in those days reading the Miranda admonition to people over the phone!

One can write a book (and many have) about the Miranda decision. For this post, suffice to say Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. A person does not have to be told they are under arrest to have Miranda apply. A person can be in "Miranda custody" long before that because of the circumstances of their contact with the police. The police do not have to read someone their rights under Miranda when they are arrested. They only have to if they ask questions designed to elicit an incriminating response. Booking questions like a persons address, emergency contact numbers don't apply. I don't care what you see on "COPS".

Does a simple failure to read someone their rights under Miranda constitute a constitutional deprivation? ........Maybe! and Maybe not!. The Supreme court has been all over the place on this and the issue is not settled. Anyway, more later on poor Mr. Miranda.