5333 private links
So the courts reduced it to simplicity itself: Miranda became only required in situations of “custodial interrogation”. That meant the suspect had to PHYSICALLY be in custody when the interrogation occurred for the courts to feel the overwhelming presence of the state was inherently coercive. There could still be questions involved regarding whether or not a person was considered physically in custody, and to a great extent they relied on ‘reasonable man’…. i.e. would a reasonable man observing the circumstance objectively think the suspect was in custody? If not, police were free to ask anything they wanted-to. Spontaneous statements were also admissible.
Clearly ‘custody’ obtained if the officer said the magic words, “You’re under arrest”. It would also obtain if the officer physically restrained the person before asking questions, and it may even obtain if the person was in a police station when being questioned. For this reason, any time I questioned someone at the police station, I had them sign a document that said they were in the police station of their own volition and were free to leave at any time and say nothing to me at all. It also said if that situation changed, they would be further advised of their rights at the time it did. This is a common practice in police investigations and is known as a Behelor admonishment. //
The idea that police can be sued for failing to Mirandize when there is no requirement they do so is ridiculous. If you don’t want to have police be able to do their jobs… just defund them. We’ve all seen where that leads.