top of page

Contact Our Firm

The Strength of Silence . . . What is the Importance of Your Miranda Rights in Missouri?

Writer's picture: Roland SwansonRoland Swanson


Among other protections, the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from: (1) being forced to testify if doing so may incriminate themselves; or (2) providing any statement(s) to law enforcement that is self-incriminating in nature. Law enforcement’s failure to abide by the procedural safeguards established by the Fifth Amendment can result in consequences ranging from statements being suppressed (excluded from evidence) all the way to dismissal of a case. As such, understanding your Miranda rights can be critical in preserving your legal interests and helping to shield yourself from coercion, intimidation, and other tactics utilized during police interrogations.

 

Fifth Amendment

 

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically states:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

As it relates to the right to remain silent, this essentially means a citizen cannot be forced to answer questions or otherwise provide information that will likely result in, assist, or further criminal prosecution.

 

Miranda Warning


            Where Does it Come From?

 

Many people have certainly heard the term or phrase “Miranda rights,” but may not know where it comes from.

 

Miranda v. Arizona originated as a criminal case involving Ernesto Miranda, an individual who was identified in a police lineup and accused of kidnap and rape. Following the identification, Miranda was arrested and questioned by law enforcement for multiple hours until he ultimately confessed to the crimes. However, at no point prior or during law enforcement’s interrogation of Miranda was he informed of his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to be represented by an attorney. Miranda was later found guilty of the charged offenses at trial and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Because law enforcement failed to inform Miranda of his right to remain silent and right to an attorney, Miranda appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court and his conviction was ultimately overturned. The Court reasoned that procedural safeguards are required to protect an individual’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, thereby requiring the accused to be informed or their rights prior to questioning.

 

            What is Required to be Included in a Miranda Warning?

 

The exact wording of a Miranda warning can vary since there is no exact universal script law enforcement is required to recite. Nonetheless, a legally sufficient Miranda warning should provide the following information:

 

  •       You have the right to remain silent.

  •       Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of law.

  •       You have the right to speak to an attorney.

  •       You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning.

  •       If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

  •       Do you understand these rights?

  •       With these rights in mind, do you wish to make a statement?

 

When is the Miranda Warning Required?


A common misconception is that every circumstance involving a criminal offense requires law enforcement to provide a Miranda warning. However, in Missouri, Miranda only applies when the person being questioned or interrogated is in custody, regardless of whether the custody is for a felony or misdemeanor offense. As such, an officer must only provide a Miranda warning if: (1) the person is actually in custody; and (2) there is an interrogation or questioning by law enforcement. In determining whether an individual was “in custody,” courts will normally look to, among other things, whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the interrogation would lead a reasonable person to believe their freedom of movement had been restricted or terminated.

 

An interrogation that starts as non-custodial in nature can evolve into a custodial interrogation if, by an objective standard, the person being questioned is no longer there on their own volition or otherwise free to leave.

 

Oftentimes, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to utilize various tactics during interrogations to obtain confessions or self-incriminating statements. However, officers are not allowed to use what has been identified as a “two-step” approach to interrogations wherein the officer intentionally interrogates an individual, obtains the statement or information they want, and then subsequently provides the person with their Miranda warning before having them repeat what was stated during step one, with the intention of avoiding their duty to provide Miranda warnings.

 

Can You Be Forced to Waive Your Right to Remain Silent?

 

Although numerous tactics are utilized to obtain statements from individuals, no tactic can be utilized that takes the voluntary nature of the statement away from the individual. An individual cannot be deprived of their free choice to make a statement, nor may any physical or psychological coercion be utilized to obtain a statement or confession. Due process requires involuntary statements to be excluded from evidence.

 

Even if an individual waives their right to remain silent, and agrees to provide a custodial statement, the individual is able to expressly revoke their waiver and the interrogation is required to stop at that moment. To the same extent, if a person requests counsel or legal representation, the interrogation must end.

 

If an individual refuses to provide a statement or withdraws their waiver of the right to remain silent, an interrogation can resume if the individual reinitiates the conversation (on their own) and new Miranda warnings are provided.

 

Asserting Your Right to Remain Silent

 

Waiving your constitutional right to remain silent is a serious decision that should not be taken lightly. Doing so can also significantly impact the outcome of your legal case. Usually, it is not advisable for an individual to waive their right to remain silent and provide a statement without the presence of an attorney. Any refusal to speak or assertion of right to remain silent must be clear. For example, simply stating a desire to no longer speak or answer questions, while continuing to engage in conversation, will not require law enforcement to terminate their interrogation.

 

CONTACT THE SWANSON LAW FIRM

 

A violation of your constitutional right to remain silent can result in an effective and powerful defense against charged offenses. As such, it is important that you have an experienced and knowledgeable attorney on your side. If you or a loved one have been charged with a criminal offense, contact The Swanson Law Firm to schedule a free consultation!

5 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page