The United States Supreme Court in Howes v. Fields ruled that Miranda rights do not necessarily apply to a Defendant interrogated while in prison.
Despite the fact that the Defendant was already confined to prison, the Court did not find that the Defendant was in a custodial situation during the interrogation as he may have been able to freely end the interrogation.
A brief explanation of what the Miranda warning is about –
The Miranda warning – also referred to as Miranda rights – is a warning given by law enforcement in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody or in a custodial interrogation before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in future criminal proceedings.
A Miranda warning is a criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer in order to protect an individual who is in custody and who is subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of elicited incriminating statements by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination plus the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
If law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person’s statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
If you are facing a criminal charge or a violation from traffic stop, it is important to speak with a knowledgeable attorney who may be able to raise any defenses based on your Miranda rights. Contact The Law office of Jason Komninos to consult with us about your particular situation and any help we may be able to offer you.
Read the original article that prompted our thoughts on this topic of protection of rights and self incrimination.