The Fifth
Amendment and
Other
Considerations
Landmark Cases
Be sure to go to the Miranda v. Arizona case at
http://landmarkcases.org. The materials contain a primer on
Miranda, which I relied heavily on to prepare this presentation.
The Exclusionary Rule
• In Weeks v. United States, (1914), the Court unanimously held
that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence
constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also
prevented local officers from securing evidence by means
prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to
their federal colleagues. Weeks applied only to federal courts
and federal law enforcement officials.
• It was not until the case of Mapp v. Ohio, (1961), that the
exclusionary rule was deemed to apply to state courts as well.
• Applies to 5th Amendment violations also i.e. Miranda.
Fruit of the poisonous tree
A companion to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" doctrine. Under this doctrine, a court may
exclude from trial not only evidence that itself was seized in
violation of the Constitution but also any other evidence that is
derived from an illegal search. For example, suppose a
defendant is arrested for kidnapping and later confesses to the
crime. If a court subsequently declares that the arrest was
unconstitutional, the confession will also be deemed tainted and
ruled inadmissible at any prosecution of the defendant on the
kidnapping charge.
(Findlaw)
The Exclusionary Rule may be the single best evidence of why
the United States Constitution’s underlying purpose is limited
government and why the U.S. government is truly created “by
the people and for the people.” For sure, the rights of the
individual are supreme over public safety when the rule is
applied.
--Millie Aulbur
Some exceptions have arisen
• Inevitable discovery.
• The search or arrest warrant was not found to be valid based
on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in
good faith (called the good-faith exception).
The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,
or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• 50th Anniversary
An accused person has the these rights when he is in police
custody:
• He has the right to remain silent,
• Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of
law,
• He has the right to the presence of an attorney, and
• If he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him
prior to any questioning if he so desires.
The Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Fifth Amendment Rationale for
the Exclusionary Rule
• To avoid the risk that statements were forced in violation of
the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights;
• To encourage officers to comply with the Miranda rules,
thereby lessening the future likelihood of compelled selfincrimination; and
• To discourage any police practices that tended to compel
confessions from suspects.
“Custody” controversy
“Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first,
what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and
second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person
have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation
and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and
actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test
to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or
restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated
with formal arrest.”
Thompson v. Keohane (1995)
Custody controversy
• Custody requires a significant deprivation of liberty.
• A person is in custody only if they are subjected to either
formal arrest or its “functional equivalent.”
• Formal arrest—occurs when a person is explicitly told they are being
placed under arrest or is booked at the stationhouse.
• Functional equivalent—occurs when a suspect's freedom of action is
significantly curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest.
• Consider a reasonable person under the same conditions of
the suspect:
• Would a reasonable person under the same circumstances
believe they were free to leave? (In other words: what would
an average or typical member of the community think under
the same circumstances?)
• The Court is not trying to figure out what this particular
suspect thought.
Thompson v. Keohane (1995)
• In September 1986, the body of a dead woman was discovered by
two hunters in Fairbanks, Alaska. The woman had been stabbed 29
times. To gain assistance identifying the body, the police issued a
press release with a description of the woman. Carl Thompson
called the police station and identified the body as Dixie Thompson,
his former wife. The police asked Thompson to come into the station
under the pretense of identifying personal items found with the
body, but it was the intention of the police to question Thompson
about the murder.[
• Thompson came to the police station and was questioned for two
hours. Two plainclothes officers performed the interrogation in an
interview room. Thompson was not read his Miranda rights and
throughout the interrogation he was told that he was free to leave.[6]
The police told Thompson that they knew he killed his former wife
and eventually Thompson confessed to the murder. Thompson was
allowed to leave the police station, but then was arrested shortly
thereafter.
Dickerson v. United States (2000)
“However, as time went on, the Supreme Court recognized that
the Fifth Amendment was an independent source of protection
for statements made by criminal defendants in the course of
police interrogation. ‘In Miranda, we noted that the advent of
modern custodial police interrogation brought with it an
increased concern about confessions obtained by coercion."
Custodial police interrogation by its very nature "isolates and
pressures the individual”’ so that he might eventually be worn
down and confess to crimes he did not commit in order to end
the ordeal. In Miranda, the Court had adopted the now-famous
four warnings to protect against this particular evil.”
Dickerson v. United States (2000)
Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence
Thomas, blasted the Court's ruling, writing that the majority
opinion gave needless protection to "foolish (but not compelled)
confessions."
Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)
Alvarado is a 17 year old high school student. A police detective
contacted his mother who agreed to bring him to the police
station for questioning about a recent crime. When Alvarado
arrived with his parents, the detective denied the parents’
request to remain with their son during the interview. While the
parents waited in the lobby, Alvarado was questioned by police.
He was not advised of his Miranda rights. During the two hour
session, the detective twice asked Alvarado if he wanted to take
a break. Alvarado admitted to his role in a murder and robbery
that police were investigating. At the end of the interview
Alvarado went home. His confession was offered as evidence
against him at trial.
Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)
In a five to four decision, the Court strongly suggested that
Alvarado was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Alvarado
came voluntarily to the police station, was never told that he
could not leave, was not threatened with arrest, and was
allowed to return home after the interview. In determining
whether Miranda warnings are required, the custody inquiry is
from the point of view of a reasonable suspect in the situation,
not the particular suspect actually in the situation. Thus,
Alvarado’s age and inexperience with police were irrelevant in
the custody inquiry.
Public safety exception to
Miranda
• The Public Safety Exception to Miranda
• The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Miranda warnings are
unnecessary prior to questioning that is “reasonably
prompted by a concern for the public safety”
• Consider whether a reasonable officer in the same position
would conclude that there is a significant threat to the public
safety
• Example: interrogation that occurs as police try to locate a
bomb they believe is set to go off
New York v. Quarles (1984)
After receiving the description of an alleged assailant, a police
officer entered a supermarket, and spotted Quarles, a man
fitting the description. The officer ordered Quarles to stop.
Quarles complied and was then frisked by the officer. Upon
detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles
where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then
formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights. Both
the gun and Quarles initial response were offered as evidence
against him at trial.
New York v. Quarles (1984)
After police located Quarles – who fit the description of an
alleged assailant and wore an empty holster – it would have
been reasonable for a law enforcement officer to conclude that
Quarles had just removed a gun from that holster and hidden it
somewhere. A hidden gun could pose a significant threat to the
public safety because it could become available for use by an
accomplice or found and used by any other person. When a
reasonable officer would conclude that there is a significant
threat to the public safety, Miranda warnings need not be given.
This is known as the “public safety exception.” Thus, a
significant threat to the public safety justified the failure to give
Quarles Miranda warnings. (5-4 decision)
Parting thought
The Exclusionary Rule may be the single best evidence of why
the United States Constitution’s underlying purpose is limited
government and why the U.S. government is truly created “by
the people and for the people.” For sure, the rights of the
individual are supreme over public safety when the rule is
applied.
--Millie Aulbur