Dispelling Miranda Rights Myths

Television and movies have made us all well-aware of the Miranda warnings that officers read off to suspects as they are being arrested. They go something along the lines of this:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” (Courtesy of the U.S. Courts website)

While these warnings actually are read to arrested individuals in real life, there are a few misconceptions about the Miranda warning that need to be addressed.

Before delving into these misconceptions, let’s take a look at why the Miranda warnings exist and how they came to be. The purpose of the reading of these warnings is to protect people’s Fifth Amendment right against coerced self-incrimination when they are being questioned by officers while they are in custody (usually once they have been arrested). It is also meant to protect individuals’ Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The Miranda warnings specifically apply to custodial interrogations, or questioning of a person in the custody of law enforcement and their freedom is limited. The idea is to inform the suspect that they are not legally required to answer officers’ questions; that if the individual does choose to speak, his or her statements can be used as evidence in court; and that he or she can choose to consult with an attorney, and to have one present, before talking to law enforcement.

The Miranda warnings became part of an arrest and interrogation protocol from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that officers must warn detained individuals of their rights as outlined above before they are subject to custodial interrogation. The Court also ruled that a failure to provide such warning (or any violation of the person’s Fifth or Sixth rights) will lead to the person’s statements being deemed inadmissible in court—even if those statements indicate guilt. For more information about the Miranda v. Arizona case, click here.

Many people falsely believe that an officer failing to read a suspect his or her Miranda warnings at the time of arrest means that the arrested person cannot be convicted. This is not necessarily true. A failure of an officer to recite the Miranda warning simply means the suspect’s statements made in the custodial interrogation cannot be used in court as evidence. Oftentimes, this equates to the case being dismissed or the defendant winning the case, due to insufficient evidence. However, in some cases, there may be other strong evidence that is used to reach a conviction, even without the defendant’s inadmissible statements.

Another misconception is that individuals need to be read their Miranda warnings in any type of questioning—even pre-arrest or pre-custodial questioning in which the person willingly cooperates with the investigation. In these types of interrogations, the person being questioned is not being held in custody and therefore has the freedom to walk away from the interrogation at any time. Considering this fact, it is not mandatory for officers to warn these individuals of their Miranda Rights in these types of situations.

My name is Jonathan Blecher, and I am a Miami DUI lawyer with more than three decades of experience. If you believe that you were not properly read your Miranda warnings or that your Constitutional rights were violated during the arrest/interrogation process, do not hesitate to contact myfirm. I provide defense in cases involving DUI arrests and many other types of criminal charges.