The Miranda warning appears frequently on television. Under what conditions or circumstances should a Miranda rights advisory be administered? If a criminal suspect confesses without first being advised of rights according to the Miranda decision, is the confession still admissible in a judicial proceeding? Explain.

            The Miranda warning, due to television, is something most people could probably recite at least a reasonable version of it, if not word-for-word. Whether from COPS and similar police-reality shows or, (my favorites), the old-school dramas such as Dragnet or Adam-12, we've all heard it many times. But it no doubt takes on added significance when it's being read to you. So far I've been lucky enough to have avoided it...

             Per the textbook (p.188-189) this Supreme Court decision was actually based on four different individual cases, and not just the eponymous Ernesto Miranda. The central issue being addressed was the coercive nature of interrogations, many of which, prior to this ruling, could have been considered unfair/violating the rights of the suspects in custody. This was especially true in the earlier eras of U.S. law enforcement, when detainees were often beaten or tortured into confessions (the “third degree”). Brown v. Mississippi (1936) was the landmark decision meant to abolish this type of tactic, and can be seen as a precursor that helped lead up to the Miranda rules.

             The Miranda warnings should be read to all individuals who have been taken into custody and are due to be interrogated. Both of these conditions must exist. In a nutshell, the suspect has the right to refuse the interrogation, whether by remaining silent or asking for an attorney. This is in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, which states that individuals cannot be made to be a witness against themselves. This, of course, doesn't get the suspect off the hook- there may be other witnesses and evidence, and if these are strong enough then prosecution will proceed anyway. It simply (and theoretically at least) protects the rights of the actual suspect from making statements involuntarily and/or without legal counsel.

             A confession by a suspect, and its admissibility in court, depends on a number of factors. If, for example, someone confesses a crime to an officer voluntarily, (say at the scene of the crime), and that person had not yet been detained or questioned, then Miranda does not apply- one has to be in custody to have those rights. (And this person might qualify for a spot on America's Dumbest Criminals, as well). Another scenario would be some criminal who, guilt-ridden, decides to walk into a police department and confess, unsolicited by the department. The Miranda rules are very specific, in part, to allow these kinds of exceptions.

             There are some other complex situations cited in the textbook where Miranda can be waived without violating rights or admissibility. One involved a confession obtained by an officer who went undercover, posing as a cell-mate to a suspect already in prison. The suspect bragged of his role in the murder for which he was under suspicion. But because he did this willingly and did not know he was speaking to an officer, his confession was admissible without the Miranda warnings. Most notably, there is a “public safety” exemption as well. If lives are in immediate danger,

such as a suspect knowing where a bomb is planted that could go off, then the dire nature of the situation trumps the need for Miranda warnings. Basically, it's a scenario where “every second counts”

and the time needed to recite the rules could hinder the resolution of the the threat.

             Overall, the conclusion seems to be that the Miranda rules accomplish their goal of protecting a suspect's rights, yet allow for some common-sense exemptions when necessary.