Anyone who has ever watched a legal drama will recognize this phrase: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
The right to remain silent is protected under a U.S. Supreme Court decision called Miranda v. Arizona. This ruling requires law enforcement to ensure that arrestees are aware of their Miranda rights (which also include the right to counsel) before engaging in direct questioning. (Note that the court did not specify the exact wording that law enforcement should use. However, the above phrase is commonly invoked.) The goal is to protect individuals from feeling compelled to make self-incriminating statements.
The circumstances that trigger the Miranda protections are “custody” and “interrogation.” A person is in custody if he has been formally arrested. Interrogation refers to explicit questioning that will likely elicit incriminating answers from the person in custody. In these situations, officers have a duty to inform the arrestee that he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. That right extends to the courtroom–no criminal defendant can be compelled to testify against himself.
Law enforcement must ensure that the suspect understands his right to remain silent.
Waiving Your Miranda Rights
However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that suspects must unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent. In 2010, the court considered a case where the suspect remained silent for almost three hours after being read his Miranda rights. He never expressly invoked the right to remain silent. After 2 hours and 45 minutes of interrogation, he answered three questions that were later used against him in trial. The Supreme Court ruled that, because the suspect did not explicitly invoke his Miranda rights, he waived his right to remain silent by answering the three questions.
Miranda rights are not absolute. In 1984, the Supreme Court created a public safety exception in a case called New York v. Quarles. That case involved an arrest made in a supermarket late at night. The arresting officer found an empty shoulder holster and asked the suspect about the gun’s location. The suspect replied, “The gun is over there.” That statement was elicited before the suspect was read his Miranda rights and was used against him as evidence.
The court held that public safety warranted the officer’s question, and that the statement could be used as evidence against the suspect. Thus, in that situation, the officer did not have to read the suspect his Miranda rights (at least not at that point).
Generally, evidence illegally derived from a criminal interrogation cannot be used against defendants in a court of law. That includes statements solicited by police who failed to adhere to Miranda. Our Schaumburg criminal defense attorneys at Glasgow & Olsson have experience excluding illegally obtained evidence from trial. Contact us today for a consultation if you are facing criminal charges. We will protect your constitutional rights. We can assist those in the Chicago area.