NCJ Number
101540
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 55 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1986) Pages: 25-30
Date Published
1986
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article discusses what actions by law enforcement officers constitute lawful interrogation, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision involving a public safety exception to the Miranda rule which governs custodial interrogations.
Abstract
The author first examines situations where defendants provide an incriminating statement and later argue that the police officer's comments were the equivalent of interrogation, rendering the statement inadmissible. These cases are divided into four categories: a statement made during or immediately following a Miranda warning, comments reflecting the officer's opinion concerning the defendant or the defendant's guilt, a reference to some investigative step which the police have employed or will employ, and a general conversation with the defendant. Police officers are advised to refrain from all but general, nonspecific conversations unrelated to the arrest. Also considered are nonverbal responses, such as a defendant's reactions to fingerprinting or other booking procedures. The paper explains the New York v. Quarles decision which carves an exemption to Miranda for questions prompted by a concern for public safety. 101 footnotes.