As a criminal defense attorney with over 8,000 cases completed, I often I hear “they didn’t read me Miranda.” I knew immediately that the expectation was “this means the case has to be dismissed.” Unfortunately, that is not what failure to give the Miranda Warnings does automatically. So, what is Miranda and what is it for?
Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is the case that put the Miranda Warnings in place. It is now a case taught in course work in high schools, law schools and law enforcement academies. The US Supreme Court ruling in this case means that if police ask questions when a person is in custody the person must be made aware of their rights. Failure to do so may result in the inadmissibility of admissions or confessions. If it were a horrible algebra problem, it would be “questioning + custody=Miranda warning.”
When applied to various standard scenarios the very thin line between various types of police interactions and actual custody becomes the key. So, what is “custody” for the purpose of Miranda? It continues to be defined through time and through court cases. As recently as 2022, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals still used the 4 prongs of Florida Supreme Court case Ramirez V. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999) in its decision in the Hudson v. Florida, 344 So. 3d 642 (2022):
- (1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning;
- (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation;
- (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt;
- (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning.
In the Hudson case officers put the defendant in handcuffs and into the back of a patrol car with the doors shut. They then asked her incriminating questions without first reading her the Miranda Warnings. The First DCA in Hudson determined the defendant was in custody because she was never told she could leave, she was handcuffed in the back of a patrol car with the doors shut, and defendant even made a statement that she did not want to be in custody.
The Hudson court did mention an important distinction - questioning a defendant as part of a routine traffic stop does not require Miranda Warnings. This is where a lot of confusion has occurred with clients over the years. The assumption that when an officer pulls them over they must be read Miranda Warnings is not the law; officers who pull a car over are in the investigation phase, not interrogation.
In the end if a determination is made that the Miranda Warnings should have been given and they were not, it does not mean the case is dismissed. What it does mean is that the questions asked and the answers given are suppressed, meaning they cannot be brought up in trial. Sometimes this is enough to end a case and the state will dismiss for lack of evidence. Other times, the state has other evidence that they feel will meet their burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Knowing the key hair line distinctions for court rulings is why having an experienced attorney on your side is crucial.
This article is for general information only and is not intended as and does not constitute legal advice or solicitation of a prospective client. It should not be relied on for legal advice in any particular factual circumstance