The Miranda Warning is supposed to be a great protector of the Fifth Amendment – we’ve heard it a million times in cop dramas as “the right to remain silent.” But it was really designed to go much further. By 1966 a long line of cases had held up and even strengthened the safeguards against a defendant’s self-incrimination and police coercion of a person in custody. It came to a head in Miranda v. Arizona. The language of the decision is pretty clear about what police are mandated to tell an arrestee, but for some reason police handbooks seem to vary in their presentation of the rights.
Now, for exactly this reason, the matter is back in front of the United States Supreme Court. It all stems from 2004, when ex-felon Kevin Powell was arrested in Tampa, Florida for violating his probation. He had just bought a handgun off the street. The police had him sign this Miranda statement:
- You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.
It’s the third sentence, in the phrase “before answering any of our questions,” that has thus far saved Kevin Powell from conviction. Apparently, this provides a defendant with an improper understanding of their rights. The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion was that the statement amounted to “only before answering” the questions, and did not allude to Powell’s right to an attorney during the interrogation itself.
The discussion came up before Florida circuit courts, which were evenly divided in their opinion on how to satisfy Miranda – four thought a general warning was enough, and four wanted an explicit reading to be given. Obviously, defendants need to be fully aware of their rights before proceeding through the legal system, as do police officers. The debate that keeps popping up concerns what Miranda actually sought to do: prohibit the use of coercion by investigators, or prevent a defendant’s self-incrimination.
What do you think? Do police need to read, verbatim, the rights to every person they take into custody? Should entire trials stop because the arresting officer minced the language of the Miranda Warning?
Posted by Tyler on December 21, 2009 at 12:30 pm.
