Custodial Interrogation and Your Constitutional Rights

Custodial interrogation takes place when police interrogate a person who is under his or her custody and cannot leave. These situations are stressful, especially when officers seek information that may be vital to an investigation. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney are among the constitutional protections that must be given before an interrogation. Knowing what constitutes ‘custodial’ and ‘interrogation’ may help people identify their rights when questioned by police. Proper procedures will create some important legal issues during a custodial interrogation.

What is Custodial interrogation?

Custodial interrogation is an interrogation by the police of an individual who is in custody or otherwise significantly restricted in his or her freedom. The Fifth Amendment mandates specific protections for custodial questioning by police under Miranda v. Arizona. The question is not whether the person is being interviewed at a police station or if he or she is suspected of a crime, but whether the person is detained and being questioned.

Custody does not necessarily mean that a person has been formally arrested. The circumstances surrounding the questioning and whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the questioning and leave. Questions and certain police words and actions likely to elicit an incriminating response are considered interrogation.

Do People Have Rights When Being Interrogated by the Police?

There are important constitutional rights that are in place for people who are subjected to custodial interrogation. Police officers must inform a person of Miranda rights before questioning him or her in custody. They safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.

Be Articulate	The right not to incriminate oneself.
Right to an Attorney	An attorney may be present during custodial questioning.
The right to be informed	Police must give the appropriate Miranda warnings before custodial questioning.
Right to Stop Answering	Whether a person has the right to abstain from further questioning depends on the circumstances.

Supreme Court precedent provides greater protection to a person invoking the right to counsel during custodial interrogation. Edwards v. Arizona, 519 U.S. 225 (1997), ruled that police may not continue custodial interrogations after a suspect exercises his right to counsel, absent relevant law, except after a lawyer is made available to the suspect.

When Are Miranda Warnings Required?

The Miranda warnings are typically required if two things exist: the person is detained, and the police are interrogating the person. Police don’t need to give the warnings each time they interact with a suspect. For instance, if a person is hurried to the police station and questioned there, that doesn’t automatically mean they are in custody. Courts review the circumstances to determine the extent of restriction on freedom of movement associated with a formal arrest.

The type of questioning is also important. Interrogation can take the form of direct questioning or what amounts to direct questioning; police questioning they know, and that is reasonable to expect, will lead to an incriminating response. These are fact-specific determinations that can matter when assessing whether Miranda protections were implicated because the timing and context of the questioning may affect the ruling.

What Happens If Police Violate Interrogation Rights?

If police interrogate witnesses without proper Miranda warnings, the prosecution may be limited in using statements made during the custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court has explained that Miranda warnings are procedural protections that preserve a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

But the impact of a purported offense would depend on the circumstances. Issues may arise as to whether the person was in custody, whether the person was interrogated, whether the person was given adequate warnings, and whether the person knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. Other legal principles may also impact the admissibility of evidence and/or statements. When an attorney reviews the case, he or she can review the recordings, police reports, witness testimony, or other available evidence to determine what happened.

Edwards also extends a right to counsel to a person who clearly asserts the right to obtain counsel during custodial interrogation before counsel becomes available. The exact impact of an alleged violation depends on the facts and the law in each case and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it a rule of law to admit to being “In Custody” upon questioning by police?

Police questioning is not a sufficient basis to establish custody. Courts consider the circumstances and whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave.

When must police read Miranda rights?

Generally, Miranda warnings do not apply to police questioning, but only to custodial interrogation.

Am I allowed to keep quiet when I am questioned by the police?

Miranda rules: You have the right to remain silent during custodial interrogation. A person should clearly invoke that right when appropriate.

May I have an attorney present at an interrogation?

Yes. One of the rights protected in Miranda is the right to counsel. The right to counsel can also affect whether police can proceed with a custodial interrogation.

What if I had not been given Miranda warnings?

The implications are based on the context and whether the questioning occurred in custody and was an interrogation. Statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be limited in their use, but a competent lawyer should review the specific facts.

Conclusion

Significant constitutional protections protect silence, self-incrimination, and access to counsel during custodial interrogation. Knowing when Miranda warnings are needed, and how invoking your rights can affect police questioning, can help you understand your legal position. The Zeiger Firm offers legal information and representation on civil rights and police interrogation issues when you have concerns about how the interrogation was conducted.