Articles Tagged with Miranda warnings

The reasonable person. Courts make many decisions using the test of what ‘a reasonable person’ would do/think/feel under certain circumstances. Older cases used the ‘reasonable man’ standard, but newer cased have modernized the test with gender neutrality. In the recent case of Cleveland v. Oles, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded a reasonable person stopped by a police officer and placed in a cruiser would not necessarily believe he or she is ‘in custody’, so Miranda warnings are not required.

Suspect-and-officer-outside-cruiser-199x300

To properly understand the Oles decision, one must first understand the Miranda warnings. Everyone seems to be familiar with the warnings from movies and television (iTunes and Netflix for those born after 1999). Few people, however, seem to understand their origin, development and interpretation.

The United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution both protect our right against self-incrimination. The the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution contain essentially the same language: ‘no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’.

Continue Reading

The Miranda warnings are well-known:  “you have the right to remain silent….”  What is not so well-known is when the Miranda warnings are required.  According to Miranda v. Arizona, the warnings must be given when a suspect is questioned while ‘in custody’.  If a suspect is in custody and the warnings are not given, statements made by the suspect cannot be used in the suspect’s trial.

Suspect and officer outside cruiser

In an OVI case, a suspect may tell an officer, “I had 13 beers, and I know I shouldn’t be driving”.  If the suspect was in custody at the time of making that statement, the statement is never heard by the jury if the Miranda warnings are not given.  For Ohio OVI cases, the question often is this:  when is a person ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda?

This question was first addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Berkemer v. McCarty.  In Berkemer, the defendant was stopped for a traffic violation and investigated for DUI.  During the investigation, but before the arrest, the defendant made incriminating statements.  The court held Miranda warnings are required for misdemeanor offenses if a suspect is questioned in custody.  The court concluded a person is not in custody during a routine traffic stop, but treatment by the officer after the stop may render a person in custody.

Continue Reading

One of the most frequently asked questions for criminal defense attorneys is about the impact of Miranda warnings. A previous article in this blog explained the holding of the Miranda case. After the publication of that article, the United States Supreme Court decided a Miranda-related case which affects investigations in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

Interrogation

The case of Salinas v. Texas came in a bit under the radar. This Supreme Court decision regarding the protection against self-incrimination did not receive much media attention, and I did not hear it discussed much among lawyers at the courthouses. Although it was not widely publicized, Salinas could have an impact in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

To understand the significance of Salinas, one must first understand Miranda v. Arizona. The holding of the Miranda case seems to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of American criminal justice. As explained in this blog’s 2012 article (“But The Officer Never Read Me My Rights”), the holding of the Miranda case is this: if a suspect is questioned while in custody, the suspect’s statements are not admissible in court unless the officer gives Miranda warnings. Another result of Miranda is this: if a suspect chooses to remain silent, the prosecution cannot comment on the defendant’s silence at trial.

Continue Reading