1. Pre-trial arrest and custody

2. 1. The Miranda warning You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?
What is the Miranda warning?
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?

3. The Miranda warning Ensures: protection against self-incrimination
right to counsel
Required:
on arrest
when someone is taken into custody
Which constitutional rights is the Miranda warning designed to protect?
protection against self-incrimination > which amendment? (5th) > avoids coercion, suspects being coerced into making a confession, would be involuntary self-incrimination
right to counsel > which amendment? (6th)
It was established by the Warren Court in 1966 in the case Miranda v Arizona, and it based on a very clear principle.
In order for rights to be effective, the suspect must be know what his rights are.
2. When must the Miranda warning be given?
Required:
on arrest
whenever someone is taken into custody > this can happen without arrest > if someone is under the control of the police, deprived of his freedom of action > he is custody even if not actually under arrest
For example if someone is handcuffed and placed in a police car without their consent, they are in custody and must be read their Miranda rights
PRES 3

4. “Miranda rights” A suspect can waive his rights.
If a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, police must immediately stop the interrogation.
Incriminatory statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights will be excluded at trial.
the exclusionary rule
A suspect can waive his rights.> choose to speak to the police without a lawyer present
2. What must the police do if a suspect invokes his right to silence?
Stop questioing him immediately >
Same if he invokes the right to counsel
What does it mean to invoke the right to silence? PRES 1
Nonetheless, sometimes they can start again > PRES 2
3. What sanction will the court use if a suspect is not given the Miranda warning?
Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights will be excluded. (Any confession or incriminating statement)
Furthermore the FOPT doctrine means that other evidence found because fof statements made during the illegal interrogation may also be excluded. There are some exceptions to that.
So if police officers do not respect these constitutional rights, then even if the suspect has made a confession, or they have evidence of guilt, the suspect may walk free.
This is a very heavy penalty, penalises the officers and also the victims. Nonetheless it is a very effective way to enforce the rules.
4. What was the popular reaction to the USSC's decision in Miranda v Arizona?
Initially there was a very negative reaction from the public, the press and Congress. Congress even tried to overrule this decision, buit they were not able to since the Constitution is the highest sourcve of law.

5. Limits A Miranda warning is not necessary:
if the officer is seeking to locate a suspect’s weapon in order to protect the public (“public safety exception”)
if the officer is undercover
The suspect must positively invoke his rights
Not necessary
if the officer is seeking to locate a suspect’s weapon in order to protect the public (“public safety exception”)
5. Do undercover agents have to give Miranda warnings? (undercover = agent infiltré) NO
6. If a suspect simply refuses to answer questions, have they invoked the right to silence NO > as saw earlier, rights muts be positively invoked > if that doesn’t happen any physical movements or other reactions can be used as evidence

6. 2. Stop and frisk
The second area we’re going to consider is stop and frisk.

7. Stop and frisk
The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
In order to arrest a suspect, the police usually require a warrant supported by probable cause.
Terry v Ohio (1968)
Terry stops: only require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
Frisks: require reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous
The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
In order to arrest a suspect, the police usually require a warrant supported by probable cause. > requires some concrete evidence, warrants issued by a magistrate, must be convinced that the arrest is justified.
Terry v Ohio (1968)
However, in the case Terry v Ohio, the USSC ruled that police can stop someone and temporarily restrict their freedom of movement, without arresting them. (Terry stops)
When can an officer stop a suspect?
Provided that the officer has reasonable suspicion that person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. Terry stops: require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
2. When can an officer frisk a suspect? To frisk (= to pat down) a suspect
Frisks: require reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous – only justified in order to protect the officer
What is reasonable suspicion > more than a hunch (= feeling/guess) > suspicion based on objective facts and specific circumstances

8. 3. Note the bullet points explaining key rules relating to "stop and frisks". You will need these for Exercise 3 (below).
4. Why do some commentators argue that stop and frisks violate the Equal Protection clause?
Because ethnic minorities are targeted disproportionately.
Despite the constitutional requirements, weapons and contraband are found rarely.
Furthermore, only about 12% of stops led to legal action being tajen.
These figures relate to New York, where there has been a lawsuit which has forced the NYPD to change the way in which it operates S + F.
But there are also issues in many other cities.