It is the policy of the Atlanta Police Department to inform all personnel of the ever-changing needs in the law enforcement community.  Although the court decision was almost 40 years ago, the principles of the case still are used daily by officers throughout the nation.  This roll call training is a review of this important case, and more importantly, to ensure each officer is following the spirit and intent of the law.

1.            Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

This case involved the arrest of a 23 year-old man for the kidnapping and rape of a woman.  The defendant was poor and had a limited education.  He ultimately confessed to the crimes.  The case was appealed through each appellate level to the United States Supreme Court for a ruling on the admissibility of the confession.  The court agreed that the confession was inadmissible on the grounds that the defendant’s Fifty Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated.  The Court held that:

We hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of

his freedom by the authorities and is subject to questioning, the privilege

against self-incrimination is jeopardized.  Procedural safeguards must be employed….

He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent,

and that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law and that he has

the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford to hire an

attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the

Interrogation.

2.                  Two important points came out of this decision. 

a.                 First, specified warnings must be given before custodial interrogation.

b.                 Second, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel must be waived prior to custodial interrogation.

In regards to custodial interrogation, a person is considered to be in custody when he or she is:

(1)               Under arrest or,

(2)               Not under arrest but deprived of their freedom in a significant way.

3.                  The specified warnings are as follows:

The United States Supreme Court ruled that only four (4) basic rights apply under the Miranda decision.  The fifth (5^th) warning has been added as customary but is not required under law.

(See the attached APD Form 905)

4.                  The waiver part of the court’s ruling states that after being given the basic Miranda rights, the person under suspicion must knowingly waive his/her rights as listed.  This takes the form of the following:

a.                 Do you understand these rights?

b.                 Do you wish to talk to us at this time without a lawyer?

There is also no requirement under the law that these waivers be made in writing.  However, the Atlanta Police Department utilized the attached APD Form 905 to facilitate this process.  It is always advisable to have this information in writing.

5.                  Although there are exceptions to the Miranda Rule (an example would be biographical questions …name, address etc.), a general rule for officers to remember is anytime you have custody and interrogation, you must read the Miranda rights.  The legal rule to remember is

Custody + Interrogation = Miranda Warnings and Waiver

6.                  Officers should read the warnings and waiver request directly from the Miranda card, and should have a Miranda card on their person at all times while on duty.  The Miranda cards may be obtained from the Property Control Unit’s Supply Section.

9.                  Court case law also holds that if the accused cannot understand the spoken language, the information may be given to the accused to read.  If the accused signs the waiver form that he/she understands their rights, the interrogation is lawful and may continue.

For further guidance in this area, contact your supervisor or the Academy at (404) 209-5250.