Point Reyes Light - August 10, 2000
The importance of using your Miranda rights
Every criminal suspect taken into custody must get told the following: They have the right to remain silent; anything they say may be used as evidence against them; they have the right to consult an attorney, and the court will appoint an attorney if they cannot afford one.
US Supreme Court justices codified these rights 34 years ago, in Miranda v. Arizona, and they ensure people are not compelled to incriminate themselves in the inherently coercive climate of police custody.
Policy custody "carries its own badge of intimidation," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren in his opinion. "To be sure, this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity.
"The current practice of incommunicado interrogation is at odds with one of our Nation's most cherished principles - that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.
"Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of free choice."
Miranda upheld When even the current, fairly conservative Supreme Court revisited that landmark decision in June, they ruled by a 7-2 vote that the recitation of "Miranda rights" is required under the Constitution.
"Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture," noted Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Even so, Sacramento County Sheriff's Sgt. Carl Stincelli, an instructor in police questioning at the Interviews and Interrogations Institute in Folsom, said many suspects never exercise their Miranda rights, usually out of remorse about a crime or anxiety about punishment.
"People do like to talk," he said. "Put somebody in a room and don't say anything, and they're going to talk."
Only the rare rogue police officer resorts to the type of physical coercion so often depicted in movies and television, Stincelli said. The vast majority of lawmen, he said, realize that any statements made prior to the Miranda warning won't be allowed in court, and that false confessions don't solve crimes.
Statements thrown out "An unintentional mistake in the Miranda theater doesn't amount to a crime," he said. "The 'punishment' of not following the Miranda rules is that we don't get to use the statement as evidence."
However, for suspects, the cost of not invoking Miranda is perilously high, argues Richard Ofshe, a UC Berkeley professor of sociology and former Marshall homeowner, who has studied the phenomenon of coerced false confessions.
Ofshe's studies demonstrate that false confessions overwhelmingly lead to conviction even when there is scant evidence to support the statements made in police custody. Although there are no statistics to show how often this occurs, Ofshe said false confessions all too often result from police coercion.
When false confessions are coerced, he said, it is often because suspects have failed to invoke their Miranda rights and have allowed investigators to use powerful - and sometimes questionable - psychological tactics.
Facts ignored And when false confessions are willfully given and lead to conviction, it is likely that lawmen have ignored facts that contradict what the suspect has said, Ofshe said.
Ofshe scoffed at Sgt. Stincelli's assertion that most suspects voluntarily confess. "If that's the case," he said, "he doesn't really need to teach interrogations."
Although Sgt. Stincelli disputes the idea that police would pin a crime on anyone who confesses without corroborating evidence, he agreed with Ofshe that recording interrogations is an effective tool for demonstrating in court whether interrogating police behaved appropriately.
"It's in our own best interests," Stincelli said. "I spend more time up on the stand than the victims do in a confession case."
The Marin chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union hasn't received complaints about Miranda rights violations or police coercion in this county, but that doesn't necessarily mean it never happens here, said Eileen Siedman, who co-chairs the chapter's law enforcement committee.
Traffic stops Siedman noted that those most vulnerable to coercion - people who are unaware of their rights - are the least likely to report violations. The ACLU advises people that while they need not answer a police officer's questions, silence can be construed as "suspicious behavior."
In the case of traffic stops, motorists must show lawmen their driver's license and registration. And you should sign a traffic ticket to prevent your arrest, the ACLU advises.
If you are detained for questioning, you need not answer any questions. Police may "pat-down" your clothing for concealed weapons, but you need not consent to any further searches. However, running away or bad-mouthing officers may lead to your arrest.
If police knock at your door and ask to enter your home, you need not admit them unless they have a warrant signed by a judge.. Ask to see it, advises the ACLU. In certain emergencies, however, the police don't need a warrant to come in.
Name and address only The ACLU advises that if you are arrested, tell the police nothing but your name and address. Don't tell stories, excuses or make up explanations. Ask to see a lawyer immediately and say nothing without legal counsel
Within a reasonable amount of time, you have the right to make a local phone call to a lawyer, bail bondsman, relative, or whomever. The police may not listen to a call to a lawyer.
The ACLU also advises being calm, polite, and respectful to police;. don't argue, run, or resist arrest, and always remember to keep your hands where the police can see them.