In 1966, the United States Supreme Court in the Miranda case established a set of warnings that all law enforcers must give to people interrogated while in custody. Prior to any questioning, individuals in custody must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if they cannot afford an attorney, one can be appointed prior to any questioning. Suspects are only entitled to Miranda warnings if they are in custody at the time that they are questioned.Where officers fail to offer a Miranda warning the statements made by the suspec cannot be admitted as evidence or used against them in a criminal trial.
The Miranda Rights seek to protect the suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as well as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Although these rights are federal in nature they have been incorporated into state law, including incorporation into the laws of Pennsylvania.
Miranda in Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania courts look at all of the surrounding circumstances in each case to determine if police action toward a person resulted in the person's being in police custody. "Custody" can occur even when there is no formal arrest. The courts examine whether the person in question could have reasonably believed that he or she was not free to leave and was being interrogated. The length of the interview, its location, whether the police transported the person any distance, and the tone and nature of the questioning are all factors considered by the courts.
When a Pennsylvania business lost over $200,000, the owners claimed that their bookkeeper had stolen the money. In their investigation, the Pennsylvania State Police questioned the bookkeeper on several occasions. In the second interview, the bookkeeper confessed to the theft. Later, she tried to have her written confession declared illegal because she was not given Miranda warnings by the detectives.
The Pennsylvania court found that the bookkeeper was not subjected to custodial interrogation. The court noted that she was in her home and that she was told that she did not have to admit the police or answer their questions. Because the detectives told her that they would leave upon her request and because she walked freely about the house serving coffee and tea, taking personal telephone calls, and smoking, the court found that her freedom was not substantially limited.
Conclusion
Not every individual or suspect interviewed by the police is entitled to Miranda warnings. Only where a person is interrogated while in custody do the protections of the Miranda case apply. Statements freely made to investigating law enforcement officers by persons not in custody are admissible in court. However, when Miranda Rights are triggered and law enforcement officers fail to issue a Miranda warning the suspect can, by motion, ask that any statements made be stricken from evidence. Pennsylvania courts will examine the totality of the circumstances in determining when Miranda Rights arise.
Of course, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, the motion and analysis can be skipped altogether if suspects refuse to give a statement, invoke their right to attorney, and otherwise avoid making statements that require retraction.