LEGALUPDATES.COM

For our Professional Subscribers. The 600-plus-page document includes 13 chapters that explore the Constitutional basis of Miranda, exceptions to the rule, waivers, juveniles and suppression issues, among other critical topics. Test your knowledge with our short Miranda quiz here, and become a Pro Subscriber today to access the entire update. One Judicial Officer Calls Our Vital Miranda Update the “Most Referenced Resource on the Criminal Bench”
 

Test Your Miranda Knowledge

The full compendium provides an essential research source for ongoing reference in applying Miranda in both field and investigative situations. Here are some examples:  

1. A suspect has asserted his Miranda right to counsel and remains in custody. Are there circumstances under which he can be questioned by your agency or another agency on a separate and unrelated offense       
   YES       NO  
    
2. A criminal complaint has been filed and an arrest warrant issued for a suspect. Can you ask this individual to come to the station and conduct a non-custodial, Beheler interview      
   YES       NO  
    
3. A civil liability action under Title 42 – Section 1983 U.S. Code can apply for a Miranda (Fifth Amendment) violation      
   YES       NO  
    

 ANSWERS: 

1. YES – The U.S. Supreme Court has established a 14-day rule for contacting a subject who previously asserted one’s Miranda right to counsel (Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) 559 U.S. 98): “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated with his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual effects of his former custody.” One California case has ruled the 14-day rule applies even of the suspect is released from custody (Peo. v. Bridgeford (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 887).  
    
2. NO – Once a suspect has been formally charged, any questioning must be cleared by a Miranda admonition and waiver which informs the subject of his/her right to counsel (U.S. v. Fellers (2004) 540 U.S. 519, Peo. v. Viray (2005)134 Cal. App. 4th 1186). This is true even if the subject has not been arraigned and counsel appointed.  
    
3. NO – The failure to administer a Miranda admonition or questioning in violation of the Miranda Rule does not rise to the level of a civil liability action (Chavez v. Martinez (2003) 538 US 760). The constitutional remedy is suppression of any statement in court. However, civil liability could apply for a Fourteenth Amendment (due process) violation where coercive questioning takes place (Henry v. Kernan (1999) 197 F 3d. 1021). “What the task force did constitutes a 20th-century inquisitorial version of the Star Chamber...to characterize the task force’s conduct as a mere violation of Miranda’s prophylactic advisement requirements is to see a hurricane as but a mov ement of air.” (Cooper v. Dupnik (1992) 93 F. 2d 1220).