Intentional Violations of Miranda: A Strategy for Liability

• NCJ Number: 171211
• Journal: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 66 Issue: 8 Dated: (August 1997) Pages: 27-31
• Author(s): K A Crawford
• Date Published: 1997
• Length: 5 pages
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article reviews the court cases that, by limiting the legal consequences of "Miranda" violations, may have encouraged some law enforcement officers to develop interrogation strategies that incorporate intentional violations of the "Miranda" rule; potential civil liability for following such strategies is also discussed.

Abstract

"Miranda" warnings per se are not constitutionally mandated; rather, the warnings are a protective measure designed to safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self- incrimination. Consequently, violations of the "Miranda" rule do not carry the same force and effect as a constitutional violation. Statements obtained in violation of "Miranda" have a variety of lawful uses; for example, in Michigan v. Tucker, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a "Miranda" violation that resulted in the identification of a witness did not preclude the government from calling that witness to testify at trial. In Oregon v. Elstad, the Supreme Court similarly held that a second statement obtained from a custodial suspect following one taken in violation of "Miranda" is not necessarily a fruit of the poisonous tree and may be used at trial. In Harris v. New York and Oregon v. Hass, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that statements taken in violation of "Miranda" may be used for impeachment purposes. The aforementioned limitations on the effects of "Miranda" have encouraged some law enforcement officers to conclude that they have little to lose and perhaps something to gain by disregarding the "Miranda" rule. In Cooper v. Dupnik, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that intentional violations of "Miranda" may result in law enforcement officers' being held personally liable for depriving individuals of either their Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination or the constitutional guarantee of due process. Although "Cooper" is the only Federal court of appeals decision thus far to hold that intentional "Miranda" violations create a civil claim under Section 1983, law enforcement officers should be aware that the precedent has been set. 30 notes