Exceptions of Miranda Rule - Research Paper

Introduction

The Miranda Rule is a crucial rule in the criminal process. Anytime a person is being arrested on suspicion of committing a crime; they are to be read their Miranda rights. The rights include; the right to remain silent; the right to request that an attorney be present during police interrogation; and the right to be provided with an attorney if the suspect cannot afford one. Miranda Rule protects a person from self-discrimination. Custody and interrogation are the demands for giving a suspect his or her rights. There are numerous instances where Miranda rule can be exempted. The paper examines exceptions to the Miranda Rule.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The name of the Miranda rule comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The criminal proceeding involved a suspect who admitted to wrongdoing after many hours of interrogation by the law enforcement officers. At no time did the law enforcement agents advise him of his right against self-implication or his rights to acquire an attorney. The court approved the respondent's written admission, over his opposition, at trial and he was imprisoned. The Supreme Court's verdict stated that the intimidating nature of the police's protective questioning needed them to counsel the suspect of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The court further gave a verdict that questioning should stop in case a suspect proclaims the right to quietness or a lawyer (Taylor, 160).

Exceptions to the Miranda Rule mean that interrogation can legally occur without the detainee being read their Miranda rights first. One normally recognized an exclusion to the Miranda rule is known as the 'public safety exception' which permits questioning of a suspect after an arrest. In this case, the exception is applied if there is an instant and substantial threat to the public. Nowadays, the public safety exception is applied to terrorism inquiries. For instance, the suspect of the Boston bombing suspect in 2013 involved application of public safety exception. In circumstances where there is a clear danger to the public, like suspected terrorist attacks where law enforcement officers are attempting to ascertain the whereabouts of a bomb or knowledge of future attacks that are going to take place, law enforcement officers are given some leeway to continue the interrogation. Even if the suspect has invoked his or her Miranda rights, their admissions may still be admissible in court (Bergman, 45).

If law enforcement officers are acting in proper response to a possible emergency, they do not have to read an individual's rights. The law enforcement officers have a logical basis to believe that their immediate assistance is required because of an emergency involving personal injury or property destruction. The exception of the rule in emergency cases also applies when the officers are not secretly inspired by the desire to arrest a person or seize evidence. Additionally, the exception of the Miranda rule is applicable when there is a reason to believe that the emergency is close.

Another exception to Miranda Rule is routine booking exception. This is a situation where the law enforcement officers question someone, but it is not an interrogation. The officers can ask questions like the person's name, address, profession and date of birth. After a suspect is arrested and brought to prison, a correctional officer will typically 'book' the suspect. The booking procedure entails; taking the suspect's photo and fingerprints; taking inventory of personal belongings and asking booking queries. Even if a person has invoked their rights to remain silent, invoked their Miranda rights, the law enforcement officer are still permitted to ask questions of that nature because they have do not have an incriminating response. The booking stage is not regarded as a crucial stage, at which a suspect has a right to legal representation. On the contrary, the routine booking is just an administrative process (Skelton and Connell, 55).

Jailhouse informant exception is also an exception to Miranda rule. The rule applies in a situation where the law enforcement uses a jailhouse criminal informant or a person acting on behalf of the police but is not technically a law enforcement officer. The individuals act as a state agent and are mainly supposed to trick a suspect into admitting a certain crime.

A routine traffic stop does involve a substantial restraint of a driver's freedom. Nevertheless, it has been held that general roadside detention does not place the motorist 'in custody' under the Miranda doctrine. The detention does not involve the kind of restraint that is normal to an official arrest, such as being confined to a room or being handcuffed (Taylor, 160).

Miranda rule can also be exempted during waiver. As fundamental as it looks, an individual may waive or give up the individual right to remain silent. When a person decides to talk to a law enforcement officer, answer their queries and engage them in a conversation, he or she is exempted from Miranda rule. Additionally, when a person fails to exercise their right by telling the police that he or she does not wish to talk; remaining silent is not sufficient; a person had to assert their right affirmatively.

Unsolicited statements are also exceptions in Miranda rule. If the suspect makes voluntary statements to the law enforcement officer, they become admissible during trial. This means that the suspect was not forced to make statements and admitted to a crime even without being interrogated. If a person fails to request the presence of a lawyer during interrogation, the state does not have to supply the person with an attorney instantly. The request for counsel is expected to be equivocal. Additionally, if there is adequate proof to convict a person without the use of the individual admissions in violation of the Miranda rights, failing to suitably deliver a Miranda warning and using the doctrine's statements in court will not interrupt the conviction (Bergman, 46).

Conclusion

Conclusively, when a person is under arrest, the police officer is expected to make an individual aware of his or her constitutional rights against self-incrimination. A 'Miranda warning' is a statement given to an individual who is under arrest. Any suspect is told that he or she has a right to remain quiet. The individual is also told that anything he states can be utilized against them in a court of law. Therefore, they have to be cautious. Miranda warning also states that a suspect has the right to a lawyer and if they cannot afford, the state appoints one for the attorney. However, there are exceptions to Miranda Rule. They include public safety exception, emergency cases, traffic arrest, standard booking processes, and jailhouse criminal informant.

Works Cited

Bergman, Paul. Criminal Law: A Desk Reference. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2016. Print.

Skelton, Meghan S., and Connell, James. "The Routine Booking Question Exception to Miranda." U. Balt. L. Rev. 34 (2004): 55.

Taylor, Bryan. "You Have the Right to Be Confused: Understanding Miranda after 50 Years." Pace L. Rev. 36 (2015): 160.