“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you by the court.”
Does any of that sound familiar? I’m sure it does, we’ve all heard it dozens of times in movies and on television in the past 30 years. I think I first heard from either Jack Webb on “Dragnet” or Martin Milner on “Adam-12.” Those tee vee policemen would always inform a suspect of his rights as they were fastening the cuffs and putting him in the car. “You’re under arrest for first degree murder,” they’d say. “You have the right to remain silent… ”
Those rights are called “Miranda rights,” after a 1966 case, Miranda versus the state of Arizona. A person in police custody has always had the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, the legacy of the Miranda decision has been that police officers are required to ensure people in custody are aware of those rights.
What is less well-known is Congress passed a law in 1968 stating that if a suspect makes a spontaneous confession before being read his or her rights, that confession may be used in court. Law enforcement agencies have ignored the 1968 law. The thinking seems to be that going through the Miranda ritual leads to a stronger case in court. Two weeks ago, a Virginia court ruled that the 1968 law invalidates the 1966 Miranda ruling. Legal scholars wonder if this is a new era for police departments and the courts.
Maybe, maybe not. The New York Times ran a longish article on this whole thing and reading it, one might think television does an accurate job of portraying the way in which people in custody are read their rights.
I have some experience in this area. In the 1980s, I was a newspaper reporter covering police and the courts. In the 1990s, I’ve been an activist and in the course of that activism, I’ve found myself under arrest on a number of occasions. The circumstances vary from occasion to occasion, but one thing is constant – it never looks like what you see on tee vee.
For one thing, police officers don’t run right up to you and tell you you’re under arrest and start reading you your rights. If they’re not absolutely sure it was you that committed the crime, they’re more likely to tell you they want you to “come down to the station and answer a few questions, help us clear a few things up.” Oh, by the way, we’re going to put you in handcuffs, because that’s procedure.
Once you’re down at the station, they might remind you that you’re not under arrest and you have not been read your rights, the police “are just trying to get to the bottom of this.” You’re placed in a room; sometimes you’re alone, other times various people come in and out.
You ask for a phone call, but you don’t get one. You’re not under arrest. You ask for a lawyer and they ask why you would want one. You didn’t do it, did you? Besides, you haven’t been read your rights, they point out, nothing you say can be used against you. The bad cop says he thinks you did it, the good cop says they have no proof. You’re trapped in a police station; they won’t let you go, they won’t charge you. This can go on for hours, maybe as long as two days. You might not get any food or sleep. You’re scared, you’re hungry, you’re tired, you’re confused. Maybe you’re not very bright, maybe you’re only 15. Maybe you did what they say you did, maybe you didn’t. You agree to sign a statement saying you did it, because police tell you that’s the only way out of this. Now that you’ve agreed to confess, they formally place you under arrest, the tape recorder and the video camera are turned on. Only now do they read you your rights and have you sign a piece of paper that says you understand your rights.
But the truth is, if you understood your rights, you might not be in this situation in the first place.
You Have the Right to Remain Silent
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you by the court.”
Does any of that sound familiar? I’m sure it does, we’ve all heard it dozens of times in movies and on television in the past 30 years. I think I first heard from either Jack Webb on “Dragnet” or Martin Milner on “Adam-12.” Those tee vee policemen would always inform a suspect of his rights as they were fastening the cuffs and putting him in the car. “You’re under arrest for first degree murder,” they’d say. “You have the right to remain silent… ”
Those rights are called “Miranda rights,” after a 1966 case, Miranda versus the state of Arizona. A person in police custody has always had the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, the legacy of the Miranda decision has been that police officers are required to ensure people in custody are aware of those rights.
What is less well-known is Congress passed a law in 1968 stating that if a suspect makes a spontaneous confession before being read his or her rights, that confession may be used in court. Law enforcement agencies have ignored the 1968 law. The thinking seems to be that going through the Miranda ritual leads to a stronger case in court. Two weeks ago, a Virginia court ruled that the 1968 law invalidates the 1966 Miranda ruling. Legal scholars wonder if this is a new era for police departments and the courts.
Maybe, maybe not. The New York Times ran a longish article on this whole thing and reading it, one might think television does an accurate job of portraying the way in which people in custody are read their rights.
I have some experience in this area. In the 1980s, I was a newspaper reporter covering police and the courts. In the 1990s, I’ve been an activist and in the course of that activism, I’ve found myself under arrest on a number of occasions. The circumstances vary from occasion to occasion, but one thing is constant – it never looks like what you see on tee vee.
For one thing, police officers don’t run right up to you and tell you you’re under arrest and start reading you your rights. If they’re not absolutely sure it was you that committed the crime, they’re more likely to tell you they want you to “come down to the station and answer a few questions, help us clear a few things up.” Oh, by the way, we’re going to put you in handcuffs, because that’s procedure.
Once you’re down at the station, they might remind you that you’re not under arrest and you have not been read your rights, the police “are just trying to get to the bottom of this.” You’re placed in a room; sometimes you’re alone, other times various people come in and out.
You ask for a phone call, but you don’t get one. You’re not under arrest. You ask for a lawyer and they ask why you would want one. You didn’t do it, did you? Besides, you haven’t been read your rights, they point out, nothing you say can be used against you. The bad cop says he thinks you did it, the good cop says they have no proof. You’re trapped in a police station; they won’t let you go, they won’t charge you. This can go on for hours, maybe as long as two days. You might not get any food or sleep. You’re scared, you’re hungry, you’re tired, you’re confused. Maybe you’re not very bright, maybe you’re only 15. Maybe you did what they say you did, maybe you didn’t. You agree to sign a statement saying you did it, because police tell you that’s the only way out of this. Now that you’ve agreed to confess, they formally place you under arrest, the tape recorder and the video camera are turned on. Only now do they read you your rights and have you sign a piece of paper that says you understand your rights.
But the truth is, if you understood your rights, you might not be in this situation in the first place.