Section 2.3: Fifth Amendment, Miranda & Interrogations

The Fifth Amendment, Miranda Warnings, and Interrogations

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' This self-incrimination clause is the foundation for rules governing custodial interrogations. In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court established that custodial interrogation contains inherently compelling pressures that undermine the individual's will to resist. To safeguard these rights, officers must advise suspects of their constitutional rights before conducting custodial interrogations.

The Miranda Trigger: Custody and Interrogation

Miranda warnings are required only when two conditions are met simultaneously: custody and interrogation. This is written as the formula: Custody + Interrogation = Miranda Required.

1. Custody

Custody is determined using an objective standard: would a reasonable person in the suspect's position believe their freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest? The subjective intent of the officer and belief of the suspect are irrelevant. Factors courts consider include:

• The location and duration of the questioning.
• The number of officers present.
• Whether the suspect was told they were free to leave.
• Whether physical restraints (like handcuffs) were used.
• Whether the questioning was accusatory.

In Berkemer v. McCarty, the Supreme Court held that ordinary traffic stops do not constitute custody for Miranda purposes because they are temporary and public, lacking the coercive atmosphere of a stationhouse arrest.

2. Interrogation

Interrogation includes direct questioning and its 'functional equivalent.' As defined in Rhode Island v. Innis, the functional equivalent consists of words or actions by police (other than those normally attendant to custody) that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. For example, appealing to a suspect's conscience or emotions (Brewer v. Williams) constitutes interrogation.

Miranda Warning Elements (Minnesota Version)

When the Miranda trigger is met, officers must read the warnings. The warnings must convey these core concepts:

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned.
4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish.

In Minnesota, officers often add a fifth warning: 'You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements.' Officers must ensure the suspect understands these rights.

Waiver Requirements

For a suspect's statements to be admissible, the state must prove the suspect waived their rights. A valid waiver must be:

• Voluntary: The product of free choice, not intimidation, coercion, or deception.
• Knowing: The suspect is aware of the rights being abandoned.
• Intelligent: The suspect understands the consequences of the waiver.

Waivers can be express (verbal/written) or implied (the suspect understands their rights and answers questions). A waiver cannot be presumed from silence.

Once a suspect invokes their rights, officers must stop questioning:

• Right to Remain Silent: Interrogation must cease immediately. Under Michigan v. Mosley, officers may re-interrogate later only if they 'scrupulously honor' the invocation—typically by immediately stopping questioning, waiting a significantant time, giving fresh warnings, and questioning about a different crime.
• Right to Counsel: Interrogation must cease immediately. Under the Edwards rule (Edwards v. Arizona), officers cannot re-initiate questioning about any crime without counsel present, unless the suspect initiates communication. The request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous (Davis v. United States).

The Minnesota Scales Rule (State v. Scales)

In 1994, the Minnesota Supreme Court established a critical rule in State v. Scales. Under this rule, all custodial interrogations, including the reading of Miranda warnings and any waiver, must be electronically recorded (audio or video) when they occur at a 'place of detention.' A place of detention includes police stations, jails, sheriff's offices, and workhouses.

The Scales rule prevents disputes about what occurred, protects suspects from coercive tactics, and protects officers from false allegations. If officers violate the rule, the court evaluates whether the violation was 'substantial.' If the court finds a substantial, unexecused violation, any statements made during the unrecorded interrogation will be suppressed at trial.

Realistic Scenario

Detective Vance arrests Miller for burglary and takes him to the police interview room. Vance turns on the video camera, sits down, and reads Miller the Miranda warnings. Miller states, 'I understand my rights, and I'll talk to you, but I don't want to sign anything.' Vance begins the interrogation, and Miller confesses.

Because the custodial interrogation was conducted in a place of detention and electronically recorded, Vance complied with State v. Scales. Miller's verbal waiver is valid because he demonstrated an understanding of his rights, and his refusal to sign a form does not invalidate his voluntary statement. If Vance had turned off the recorder to speak 'off the record', statements made during that portion would likely be suppressed under Scales.