NCJ Number
109011
Journal
Harvard Law Review Volume: 100 Issue: 7 Dated: (May 1987) Pages: 1826-1845
Date Published
1987
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This article examines the rules promulgated 22 years ago in Miranda v. Arizona against the environment in which the rules are carried out today, concluding that the rules do not protect the accused.
Abstract
It argues that Miranda warnings fail to protect a suspect's right to silence and right to counsel. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court, over the past 22 years, has limited the applicability of Miranda warnings. This has encouraged law enforcement officers to develop ways to circumvent the safeguards. An analysis of the Miranda decision concludes that (1) the situations in which the Miranda exclusionary rule apply are not very limited and (2) a new procedural rule is needed to preserve the constitutional values the Miranda court intended to protect. The proposal is offered that all suspects in custody should have a nonwaivable right to consult with a lawyer before interrogation by police. Additionally, any statement obtained by police before a suspect consults with counsel would automatically be inadmissible as evidence. 101 footnotes.