UNIT 2: Criminal Law and Juvenile Justice
Chapter 12
Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation
For my part I think
it a less evil that
some criminal
should escape than
that the
government should
The criminal justice process includes everything
that happens to a person from the moment of
arrest, through prosecution & conviction, to
release from jail or prison
 This chapter deals with the investigation phase,
which includes arrest, search & seizure,
interrogations, and confessions – it also looks at
how the U.S. Constitution limits what police can
do
 There are separate state & federal criminal
justice systems

Sequence of Events in the
Criminal Justice Process
T12-1 [Handout]
 Page 135

Introduction
Great discretion can be exercised by criminal
justice system personnel at each step of the
process from the police to the prosecutor to the
sentencing judge to personnel in the correctional
system
 Many of the most critical events of a case happen
before the trial (i.e., at a pretrial hearing, when
the defendant may attempt to suppress certain
evidence), & relatively few cases actually result in
a trial
 Many cases are either dropped or terminated by
a plea bargain

Once a crime is reported, an investigation
follows
 If the investigation leads to an arrest, the
case is said to have “cleared”

 Clearance rates are usually highest for the most
serious crimes because police departments focus
their resources on these cases
Law Enforcement Models

There is on-going tension between two
competing law enforcement models: the
crime control model & the due process model
 The crime control model emphasizes the
apprehension & punishment of criminals
 The due process model emphasizes the use of fair
procedures in dealing with defendants
○ A variation of this model is the fairness or due-
process of victims model that focuses on justice for
the victim

Proponents of each model seek to reduce
crime, but through different means
Criminal Procedure Rights
Granted by State Constitutions

In WA, arrests based on information from
informants require
 a credible informant and
 reliable information
Arrest

An arrest takes place when a person suspected of a
crime is taken into custody
 An arrest is considered a seizure under the Fourth
Amendment, which requires that seizures be reasonable

The police may take someone into custody 1 of 2
ways
 W/O an arrest warrant in certain felony cases & in
misdemeanor cases (in public) if there is probable cause
 With an arrest warrant
○ An arrest warrant is a court order commanding that the person
named in it be taken into custody - it shows that a judge agrees
there is probable cause for the arrest

Probable cause to arrest means having a
reasonable belief that a specific person has
committed a crime
 To show probable cause, there must be some facts
that connect the person to the crime
 This reasonable belief may be based on much less
evidence than is necessary to prove a person
guilty at trial

The courts have allowed drug enforcement
officials to use what is known as a drug
courier profile
 Used to provide a basis to stop & question a
person or to help establish probable cause for
arrest
 Often based on commonly held notions concerning
the typical age, race, personal appearance,
behavior & mannerisms of drug couriers

Opposition
 Individualized suspicion – as opposed to the
generalized characteristics of drug couriers –
should be required to establish probable cause

Proponents
 Drug interdiction presents unique law enforcement
problems & that the use of the profiles is
necessary in order to stop drug trafficking
Police may establish probable cause from info.
provided by citizens
 Info. from victims or witnesses can be used to
obtain an arrest warrant
 Info. from informants can also be used if they
can convince the judge that the information is
reliable

 Whether the informant has provided accurate info. in
the past
 How the informant obtained the info., &
 Whether the police can corroborate (or confirm) the
informant’s tip w/other info.

If an officer has reasonable suspicion that the
person is armed & dangerous, he may do a
limited pat-down of the person’s outer
clothing—called a stop & frisk—to remove
any weapons the person may be carrying

A police officer does not need probable cause to stop &
question an individual on the street
 You may decline & continue your activity – your silence or
departure may not contribute to probable cause or reasonable
suspicion
 If you run from the officer, that flight may give the officer
reasonable suspicion to stop you again, at this point you cannot
walk away (especially in areas of high crime)

However, the officer must have reasonable suspicion to
believe the individual is involved in criminal activity
 The reasonable suspicion standard does not require as much
evidence as probable cause – it must be more than a mere hunch

Therefore, it is easier for police to stop & question a person
than it is to arrest a person

The most common kind of arrest is when
people don’t realize they are being arrested
at all
 If you are taken into custody under circumstances
in which a reasonable person would not feel free
to leave is considered to be under arrest - whether
or not you are told that

When an officer stops a person driving a car
for violating traffic laws, the driver is
technically under arrest because the driver
isn’t free to leave, but must stay until the
officer releases him or her

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
police can order all passengers out of a car
when making a lawful traffic stop
 The detention in this case is brief, usually lasting
only as long as it takes the officer to check ID &
registration, & typically ends when a citation
(ticket) is issued for the violation
Probable Cause &
the Law on Stops & Arrests
*
Reasonable Suspicion &
Belief the Suspect Might Be Armed and Dangerous
*
*
Reasonable Suspicion
Arrest
Stop & Frisk
LEVEL OF INTRUSION:
Stop
*
No Suspicions
Consensual
Encounter
LEVEL OF PROOF
Probable Cause
Police Action
What Is It?
When Can Police Do It?
Consensual Encounter
An officer talks with an
individual. The individual
is free to leave at any
time.
An officer can do this at
any time. No information
is required prior to an
informal contact.
Example: An officer asks a pedestrian if she saw the person who broke a store
window or the officer talks to a second-grade class about safety.
Police Action
What Is It?
When Can Police Do It?
A stop
(also known as an
investigative detention)
A brief period of
questioning during which
no charges are made.
The person is not free to
leave at any time.
If an officer, based on his
or her experience, has a
reasonable suspicion that
a person is involved in a
crime that is taking place
or being planned, then
the officer can stop the
person to ask for
identification and an
explanation of the
suspicious activity.
Reasonable suspicion is
more than a hunch and is
based on specific details
or facts.
Police Action
What Is It?
When Can Police Do It?
The person may be
detained for a reasonable
amount of time. One
U.S. Supreme Court
decision held that 20’ was
reasonable. If the person
if forced to go to a police
station, courts have
usually held that an arrest
has taken place.
Example: An officer sees a person pacing in front of a store window, picking up
rocks, and looking up at the window.
Police Action
What Is It?
When Can Police Do It?
Stop and Frisk
An officer “pats down” the
outer garments of an
individual to check for
weapons in order to
protect the officer’s safety
In the case of Terry v.
Ohio, the U.S. Supreme
Court sanctioned
stopping and frisking a
suspect to search for
weapons when there was
reasonable suspicion that
a crime was about to be
committed and that the
suspect might be armed
and dangerous.
Police Action
What Is It?
When Can Police Do It?
If an item is felt during the
frisk and the officer
believes the item to be
dangerous, the item will
be taken, or seized. If the
item taken provides the
police with probable
cause to arrest the
person, the officer may
then do a full search
(such as pockets and
socks)
Police Action
What Is It?
When Can Police Do It?
Arrest
A person suspected of a
crime is taken into
custody. A person is not
free to go and must
remain with the police.
An officer needs probable
cause to make an arrest.
Probable cause is the
reasonable belief that a
person has committed a
crime. In some cases,
prior to the arrest, officers
must request an arrest
warrant from a judge,
who will determine
whether there is probable
cause to believe that the
person named has
committed the crime. In
other cases, officers may
not need a warrant.
Example: An officer sees a person throw a rock through a store window

Judges &/or juries determine if a defendant is
convicted or acquitted—not police officers
 The level of proof required for criminal conviction is
much higher than probable cause
 Convictions require that the accused be found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

The Use of Deadly Force - the 1985 U.S.
Supreme Court case involving use of deadly
force changed the law in many states
 In this case, a Memphis police officer shot a young
person as he fled behind a house that the officer
suspected him of burglarizing
 The officer did not know whether the youth was
armed (he was not), but Tennessee law allowed
use of deadly force if a suspect continued to flee
after notice of intent to arrest
The Court ruled this law, as well as the
practice of using deadly force against people
whom officers did not have probable cause to
believe were dangerous, to be an illegal
seizure under the 4th Amendment
 Even before the decision, a survey found that
87% of police departments allowed use of
deadly force only against dangerous fleeing
felons


A police officer may use as much physical force
as is reasonably necessary to make an arrest
 Most police departments limit the use of deadly force
to incidents involving dangerous or threatening
suspects
 In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide
whether it was lawful for police to shoot an “unarmed
fleeing felony suspect”
 The Court ruled that deadly force “may not be used
unless it is necessary to prevent escape, & the officer
has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a
significant threat of death or serious physical harm to
the officer or others”
A police officer who uses too much force,
makes an unlawful arrest or violates a
citizen's rights can be sued under the federal
Civil Rights Act
 The government could also file a criminal
action against the police
 Many local governments have processes for
handling citizen complaints against police
misconduct


A police officer is never liable for false arrest
simply because the person arrested didn’t
commit the crime
 It must be shown that the officer acted maliciously
or had no reasonable grounds for suspicion of
guilt
 If an arrest is later ruled unlawful, the evidence
obtained as a result of the arrest may not be used
against the accused
Search and Seizure
The 4th Amendment entitles each individual
to be free from unreasonable searches &
seizures & sets forth conditions under which
search warrants may be issued
 In evaluating 4th Amendment cases, the
courts seek to balance the government's
need to gather evidence for law enforcement
purposes against an individual's right to
expect privacy

Like other Bill of Rights protections, the right
to privacy is not absolute
 Only “unreasonable” searches & seizures are
prohibited
 The 4th Amendment protects people from the
government & those acting with the authority
of the government


Search & Seizure law is complex – there are
many exceptions to the basic rules
 Once an individual is arrested, it may be up to the
courts to decide whether any evidence found in a
search was legally obtained
 If a court finds that the search was unreasonable,
then evidence found in the search cannot be used
at the trial against the defendant

This rule – the exclusionary rule – does not
mean that the defendant cannot be tried or
convicted, but it does mean that evidence
seized in an unlawful search cannot be used
at trial

Traditionally, courts have found searches
and seizures of private homes reasonable
only when authorized by a valid search
warrant
 A search warrant is a court order issued by a
judge who agrees that the police have probable
cause to conduct a search of a particular person
or place

However, there are many circumstances in
which searches may be conducted without a
warrant
 Cases that deal with warrantless searches are
Maryland v. Buie, the “protective sweep case,”
and Minnesota v. Dickerson, the “plain feel case”

Even so, these searches must be reasonable
under the 4th Amendment
In analyzing search cases, it is helpful to ask:
Did the person complaining of the search
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
these circumstances?
 This approach helps explain why one’s
privacy rights are usually greater in the home
than on the street


Recent U.S. Supreme Court decision have set
out rules for police officers conducting
searches when issuing traffic citations
 In one case, the Court ruled that a full search of a
car belonging to a man stopped for speeding
constituted an unreasonable search & invalidated
the state law allowing such searches
 In another case of a man stopped for speeding,
the Supreme Court upheld the officer’s full search
of the car—in which drugs were found—because
the driver consented to the search
 The Court refused to require that a defendant be
advised that he or she is free to go before
recognizing the consent as voluntary




The Court also upheld a stop for a traffic violation
that was a pretext for determining whether
suspected drug crimes were being committed
The stop was reasonable where the police had
probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had
occurred
Then, when the officers observed drugs in the hands
of one of the passengers, the search was considered
a plain-view search
The Supreme Court ruled that a police officer making
a traffic stop may lawfully order the driver and all
passengers out of a vehicle during the stop
Recent cases have also explored the nature of
the “knock and announce” rule, which requires
officers to knock on the door & announce their
identity & purpose before attempting a forcible
entry
 The law usually requires that special reasons
be given for permitting the search at night,
between the hours of 10 pm & 6 am

 This lessens the chances that a search will be an
unreasonable invasion of a citizen’s privacy
Searches are generally limited to daylight hours
to avoid the trauma of the “midnight knock”
 In addition, it may be more dangerous for police
to execute search warrants at night
 If there is no response, the police may enter
using force, if necessary
 Police may be excused from following the law
under emergency circumstances

 For example—if the officer is genuinely in danger or
contraband is being destroyed

If a court finds that evidence was collected
as the result of an unlawful search, the
evidence cannot be used against the
defendant at trial
New Issues in Search & Seizure
The examples in Problem 12.4 center on
search & seizure of persons or physical items,
but the 4th Amendment also applies to
nonphysical information, such as phone
conversations
 In 1967, a case went to the U.S. Supreme
Court in which police intercepted
conversations over a public telephone about
illegal gambling activities


The Court held that listening to & recording
phone conversations with an electronic
listening device attached to the outside of a
public phone booth is a “search and seizure”
subject to 4th Amendment protections, & a
search warrant is required because a person
has a reasonable expectation of privacy even
when using a public phone

Is it possible for police to conduct a search of
your house that violates your 4th Amendment
rights without ever entering your home or
touching anything?
 As a result of modern technology and the Supreme
Court’s decision in Kyllo v. United States, the
answer is yes
In the Kyllo case, federal agents were suspicious
that marijuana was being grown in Danny Kyllo’s
home & used a thermal imaging device to
determine the amount of heat emanating from the
house
 The amount of heat was consistent with the highintensity lamps that are often used for growing
marijuana indoors
 The scan showed that Kyllo’s garage roof and a
side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest
of his home & substantially warmer than
neighboring homes

On the basis of this evidence, a judge issued a
warrant to search Kyllo’s home, where agents
found marijuana growing
 After he was indicted on a federal drug charge,
Kyllo challenged the use of the thermal imager
without a warrant as an unlawful search under
the 4th Amendment
 This case raised new issues for the Court

Under the expectation-of-privacy test, it could be
argued that Kyllo had no expectation of privacy in
the heat emanating from his home because he
had done nothing to conceal it or keep it private
 However, under the circumstances this test
seemed unfair
 Because Kyllo did not know that technology could
allow detection of heat waves outside his home,
he saw no reason to conceal them—he assumed
his actions were private

In a 5-4 decision authored by Judge Scalia, the
Court agreed with Kyllo that a warrant is required
if the government uses advanced technology that
is not common in everyday use to obtain
information about activities within a home or other
settings for which the defendant has an
expectation of privacy
 However, a warrant would not be necessary if
officers used binoculars to see inside someone’s
home, because binoculars are in common use


The dissenting opinion argued that officers
should be allowed to draw inferences from
information that is available in the public
domain, in this case heat waves
The “Plain View” Exception

The “plain-view” exception to the search
warrant has been expanded to include plain
hearing, plain smell, and plain feel
 Plain Hearing: allows officers to listen to
conversations taking place in private areas where
they have a right to be
○ For example—if officers can hear a conversation from
a motel room next to one occupied by the suspects,
they have a right to listen in
 Plain Smell: police may seize objects based on
their odor when the odor establishes probable
cause
○ For example—police can search for & seize
marijuana based on the odor coming from a car
 Plain Feel: applies to situations in which a pat-
down search immediately reveals the felt object is
contraband or evidence of a crime
Public School Searches
In general, school officials are allowed to search
students & their possessions without violating
students‘ 4th Amendment rights
 Should the exclusionary rule apply to searches by
school officials of students in high school?

 In the 1985 case, the state of New Jersey argued that
the exclusionary rule should not apply to schools at all
 New Jersey argued that school officials were not agents
of the state like police, who must follow the exclusionary
rule
 Instead, they argued, school officials were standing
in for the students’ parents (a doctrine called in loco
parentis) & that the escalating problems of drugs &
violence in the schools justified the exclusionary
rule not being applied in school settings
 The Supreme Court rejected these arguments
○ It held that the rule should apply because students
are citizens who should have the same basic rights
as citizens on the street, although a lower standard of
proof may be required
○ The court also ruled that public school officials were
agents of the state
New Jersey v. TLO

How much evidence should a school official have
before searching a student’s purse or locker?
Should the standards of probable cause or
reasonable suspicion be required?
 The Supreme Court ruled that the standard of probable
cause required for searches outside school did not
apply to school officials searching a student’s person or
purse
 There has not been a Supreme Court ruling on
searching student lockers, but most courts have allowed
such searches by school officials on reasonable
suspicion, which is less than probable cause
 These searches are usually on the basis that the lockers
are owned by the school & that students do not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in their public school
lockers
 In this case, the Court ruled that the student, known as
TLO, could be searched if the school official had,
“reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will
turn up evidence that the student has violated, or is
violating either the law or rules of the school”
○ Violating a “no smoking” rule can justify a search
○ Also, the exclusionary rule applies only to court
proceedings
○ Even if evidence is illegally seized, it can be used against a
student at a school disciplinary hearing

The dissenting justices thought the normal
probable cause standard should be required
for school searches, & that the reasonable
grounds standard constituted an inappropriate
watering down of the 4th Amendment as it
applied to schools

Do you believe that the principal had the right to
open the student’s purse? Could the marijuana &
drug paraphernalia be used against her in court?
 In the actual case, the Supreme Court found that the
fact that the student had been observed smoking in
violation of school rules provided reasonable suspicion
 This justified the principal’s decision to open her purse
& to look for cigarettes
 In addition, seeing the rolling papers in the purse gave
rise to a reasonable suspicion that she possessed
marijuana, which justified further search of the purse
 The dissenting justices argued that there was no need
to open the purse because the teacher had observed
the student smoking
 Even if the purse could be opened, once the cigarettes
were found the principal had no right to look for other
items
[The general rule on searches of student property such as
book bags & purses is that the principal or designee must
have reasonable suspicion to start the search & the scope of
the search must also be reasonable—it could be argued that
upon finding cigarettes, it was reasonable for the principal to
continue searching for matches or a lighter, which would help
to determine whether or not this student had actually been
smoking—in a lawful search, it is permissible to seize
anything that is illegal to possess]

Should HS students have fewer rights or the
same rights as adults in the community?
 Some people argue that students’ rights should be
restricted because of their age, lack of maturity, & the
fact that schools are special places of learning that
should not be compromised by the distractions that
stem from problems such as drugs & violence
 Others argue that students cannot be taught the
principles of the Constitution or other civic values if
these principles do not apply to them as well
 They may also argue that if a school provides students
fewer rights than adults, the message is that the rights
of students are not important
Drug Testing—Earls
Prob. 12.7—The Case of Student Drug Testing
In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the
majority held that individualized suspicion was
not necessary in order to require drug testing of
students participating in activities nor was a
warrant required because public schools fall
under the special needs exception
 The Court found that this was one of the limited
circumstances, like a sobriety checkpoint to catch
drunk drivers, in which the need to discover
hidden conditions or prevent their development is
sufficiently compelling to justify the privacy
invasion

Suspicionless Searches

Searches & seizures are usually
unreasonable if there is no individual
suspicion of wrongdoing
 Ex: police can’t search all the people gathered at
a street corner if they suspected that only 1 of the
people possessed evidence of a crime
 They could search only the person upon whom
their individual suspicion is focused so that the
privacy rights of others are protected

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized some
limited circumstances in which this requirement of
individualized suspicion need not be met
 Ex: the Court has upheld suspicionless searches
conducted in the context of a program designed to meet
special needs beyond the goals of routine law
enforcement
○ These special circumstances include fixed-point searches
at or near borders to detect illegal aliens, & mandatory
drug & alcohol tests for railroad employees who have
been involved in accidents
 These searches are controversial because they seem
to depart from the 4th Amendment’s explicit requirement
that searches be based on probable cause
Racial Profiling in
Police Investigations
Complaints of racial profiling have increased
in recent years
 Racial profiling – or racially biased policing –
is the inappropriate use of race as a factor in
identifying people who may break or have
broken the law

Critics say that it violates people’s
constitutional right to equal protection before
the law & presumption of innocence
 They also say that it is an ineffective law
enforcement tactic

 it reinforces racial stereotypes in society
 & it creates negative relations between police &
citizens

The general rule is that it is inappropriate for
an officer to stop a person solely because of
his/her race
 Race may be used as one factor among others in
deciding whom to stop
○ Ex: an eyewitness describes the robber as an
African American man – police may use race as a
factor in deciding to stop an African American man
that is seen running from the immediate vicinity

Much of the racial profiling centers of traffic
stops—known in the African American
community as DWB—or “driving while black”
 In 1998, a federal judge reduced an African
American defendant’s criminal sentence on the
grounds that his lengthy prior record may have
been skewered by race-based traffic stops

As a result of Wilkins v. Maryland State Police,
many studies on racial profiling were conducted
throughout the U.S., with alarming results . . .
 One analysis of police searches along I-95 (N from FL to
Maine) revealed that although 74.4% of speeders were
white, African Americans constituted 79.2% of the
drivers searched
 Another investigation in NY in 1999 revealed that African
Americans were stopped 6 times more often than
whites—African Americans were only 25% of the NY
population, yet made up 50% of the people stopped &
67% of the people stopped by the NYC Street Crimes
Unit

After the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, many Arab Americans, people of Middle
Eastern descent, Muslims, & people who
simply “looked Arab” complained that they
were being detained or questioned by police
or by security guards at airports for no reason
other than their appearance, clothing, or
because they were carrying a religious symbol
or book
The law prohibits racial profiling, as it requires
that most stops, arrests, & searches made by
police officers be based on some sort of
individualized suspicion
 However, it is sometimes difficult to prove why a
police officer stopped or arrested a person
 As of 2002, 14 states had passed legislation
mandating racial profiling policies, & more than
400 law enforcement agencies have instituted
data-collection methods to learn more about the
actual extent of the problem

Despite the fact that racial profiling is against
the law & that most people say they are
against the practice, some minority groups &
civil liberties organizations feel that the
problem continues to occur & needs to be
controlled
 According to a 2002 report issued by the Office
of Community Oriented Policing > 60% of
Americans believe racial profiling exists


Other people feel that it is reasonable, in light
of the September 11, 2001 attacks, or in
neighborhoods with a high rate of crimes by
individuals of a certain racial or ethnic group,
to search people solely because of their race
Interrogations and Confessions

Miranda Warnings: You have the right to . . .
 Recent cases have altered the original effect of the
Miranda case
 In one case, the Court held that police may ask
questions related to public safety before advising
suspects of their rights
 The Court also limited the impact of the Miranda
ruling by requiring that the person be in a condition
of custodial interrogation before the Miranda
warnings are needed
Custodial Interrogation
and Confession Law
The law in the area of interrogations &
confessions is widely misunderstood—many
people think that Miranda warnings must be given
at the time of arrest or the case will be thrown out
 While Miranda warnings often are given at this
point, they are not a requirement of a lawful
arrest
 They are required once a defendant is in custody
or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom in
some significant way & is being interrogated

After an arrest is made, it is standard police
practice to ?, or interrogate, the accused
 These interrogations often result in
confessions or admissions
 The accused’s confessions or admissions are
later used as evidence at trial


Balanced against the police’s need to ? suspects
are the constitutional rights of people accused of
a crime
 The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides
citizens with a privilege against self-incrimination
○ This means that a suspect has a right to remain silent &
can’t be forced to testify against himself/herself
○ This protection rests on a basic legal principle: the
government bears the burden of proof
○ Suspects are not obliged to help the gov. prove they
committed a crime or to testify at their own trial

Under the 6th Amendment, a person accused
of a crime has the right to the assistance of an
attorney

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a
confession is not admissible as evidence if it is
not voluntary & trustworthy
 This means that using physical force, torture,
threats, or other techniques that could force an
innocent person to confess is prohibited

In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, the
Supreme Court said that even a voluntary
confession is inadmissible as evidence if it is
obtained after the defendant’s request to talk
with an attorney has been denied
 The Court reasoned that the presence of
Escobedo’s attorney could have helped him avoid
self-incrimination

Although some defendants might ask for an
attorney, others might not be aware of or
understand their right to remain silent or their
right to have a lawyer present during
questioning

In 1966, the Supreme Court was presented
with such a situation in the case of Miranda v.
Arizona
 In it’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that
Ernesto Miranda’s confession could not be used at
trial because officers had obtained it without
informing Miranda of his right to a lawyer & his right
to remain silent
 As a result of this case, police are now required to
inform people taken into custody of the so-called
Miranda rights before questioning begins


This taking into custody might actually precede an
officer’s statement - “You’re under arrest!”
The key issue is:
 When did custodial interrogation begin?

In any case, giving or not giving the Miranda
warnings is not related to the validity of the arrest
 If the warnings are not given, the arrest itself is still
considered valid if it is supported by probable cause, but the
state will not be able to use any illegally obtained confession
against the defendant at the trial
 Depending on other evidence that the state has, this could—
but not necessarily—result in charges being dropped

In Miranda’s 2nd trial, even though the court
couldn’t use his confession as evidence
against him, Miranda was convicted based on
other evidence

In Standbury v. California, the U.S. Supreme
Court further explained what is meant by custodial
interrogation
 The fact that the officer questioning an individual
believes that the person is a suspect does not mean that
the suspect is in custody unless that fact is
communicated to the suspect
 In other words, if during questioning, an officer begins to
suspect the person of a crime but does not tell the
person, then a reasonable person would feel he or she
was free to leave, & therefore not in custody
In a 1980 case, a robbery suspect was given the
Miranda warnings several times & replied that he
wanted to consult a lawyer
 On the way to the police station, one officer said
to the another that he was afraid a missing
shotgun (believed to have been used in the
robbery) would be found by a student from a
nearby school
 The other officer made similar comments
 Overhearing, the defendant then said he would
show them where the gun was located


The U.S. Supreme Court held that the police
comments were “offhand remarks” & not an
interrogation that the officers would have
expected to evoke an incriminating response
The Supreme Court has also held that the
Miranda case does not apply to a police officer
stopping a motorist suspected of driving while
intoxicated
 The Court said that no Miranda warnings need to
be given until the person is “in custody” (in a
condition of “custodial interrogation” before the
warnings are needed)

 Custodial interrogation means that the person is in
custody (not free to leave) & is being interrogated
(questioned) by the police

The case of New York v. Quarles created a
public safety exception to Miranda
 A police officer who was arresting a rape suspect
in a grocery store asked the suspect where his
gun was before advising him of his rights
 The suspect then pointed to a nearby grocery
counter, where the gun was found
 The court held that police may ask ?’s related to
public safety before advising suspects of their
rights
Miranda warnings also need not be given in
the exact form described in the Miranda case
 This interpretation of the Miranda decision
occurred in the 1989 case Duckworth v. Eagan

 The defendant was informed that if he could not
afford a lawyer, one would be appointed “if and
when you go to court”
 The Supreme Court held that this form of the
Miranda warnings was adequate because it
conveyed the necessary information to the
defendant
Remember that defense counsel will ask the
judge before trial to exclude the results of an
illegal search
 Defense counsel will also ask the judge at a
pretrial hearing to exclude any statement
given by the defendant in violation of the
Miranda rule
