Miranda: More than Words, is the lack of words ... "you have the right to remain silent" has resonated from generation to generation, but the full meaning of the directive seems to have lost its impact. All too often, individuals forget, or are perhaps ignorant about, the ramifications and importance which stems from those seven words.
The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a landmark decision which mandated the advisement of one's constitutionally based right to remain silent, and ostensibly led to a more coherent manner by which the Constitutional Rights are afforded to United States citizens by the Fifth and Sixth amendments could be enunciated. Once an individual has been placed "in custody" by law enforcement, before any inquiry regarding any particular wrong doing that individual may have done, that person must be made aware of the fact that he or she has the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against him or her, and that he/she has the right to an attorney before questioning, and that an attorney would be appointed if it were cost prohibitive.
As a former prosecutor and a presently practicing criminal defense attorney, it is amazing how many intelligent people think they are obligated to speak with police, in spite of being warned to the contrary. While the number of cases that have been litigated regarding this issue are numerous, and the courts in both state and federal jurisdictions view such cases on the facts particular to the issue at hand, the prevailing tendency of trial courts and the appellate courts is to try to find an avenue to rule that the statements made by the accused in criminal cases are admissible.
Generally, the issue revolves around whether the accused was "in custody," as the right to remain silent that emanated from the Miranda case only comes into play when a reasonable man would not feel free to leave the situation in which the law enforcement has involved themselves with the accused. For example, person "A" has been handcuffed and put into a police car; person "A" is in custody, and if the law enforcement office is going to question person "A," the so-called Miranda rights should be advised.
Person "B" has been called and asked to come to the police department to discuss their knowledge pertaining to an investigation. Person "B" goes to speak with a detective. As person "B" has gone in voluntarily, he or she can leave as well, thus the "in custody" aspect does not necessarily apply, therefore, the Miranda rights would be unnecessary.
Ultimately, every scenario is different and whether the reading of these rights is needed depends on the facts. As an attorney, I would advise that if the situation involves law enforcement questioning, whether it be after a traffic stop, when contraband is located in the car or a seemingly friendly meeting with law enforcement, know that the right to remain silent is paramount. One cannot make an incorrect recountation of his/her whereabouts, or tell a lie that comes back to haunt them if he/she simply keeps his/her mouth shut.
Editorial on 04/28/2016