Day 4: Privilege Against Self-Incrimination & Miranda Doctrine
Miranda warnings are not required just because you are talking to a cop. They are triggered only when two conditions are met simultaneously.
Would a reasonable person feel they were not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave? Crucial: A routine traffic stop is "seizure" but NOT "Miranda custody."
While the test is objective, a child's age is relevant to the custody analysis if known to the officer.
Interrogation includes direct questioning OR any words/actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Miranda is not required when the suspect is unaware they are speaking to a police officer (e.g., an undercover agent in a jail cell).
Once warnings are given, a suspect must be clear and unambiguous to stop the questioning.
Police may ask questions without Miranda if there is an immediate threat to public safety (e.g., "Where is the gun?" in a crowded store).
New York v. Quarles
Evidence found due to a voluntary but un-Mirandized confession (like a physical weapon) is ADMISSIBLE. Miranda only suppresses the statement itself.
Scenario: A suspect is in custody and says, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." Does the officer have to stop questioning?