Top header graphic with link to CSUS Home Page california state university, sacramento
Header Graphic
sac state homeuniversity affairspublic affairs
 
 Search Sacramento
 State website

  Sacramento State
  main news page


media resources graphic
   news releases
   news and events
     archive

   facts & stats
   experts guide
   image downloads
   news by e-mail
   contact news
     services staff

   submit news
     & events

   feedback

publications graphic
   Sac State Magazine
   Sacramento State
     Bulletin

   Newslink
   Sacramento State
     Catalog


calendars graphic
   events this month
   search events
   academic
   athletics
   commencement

additional news graphic
   Capital Public Radio
   alumni association
   crime alerts
   construction
   CSU Newsline

visitors resources graphic
   visitor relations
   commencement
   Sacramento State
     ticket office

   campus directory
   campus tours

Capital University News, California State University, Sacramento

November 1, 2004

Professor ponders fate of Miranda warning

The words are familiar to anyone who’s watched a cop show: “You have the right to remain silent . . .” But while the Miranda warning was created to safeguard citizens from self-incrimination, there are signs police have been intentionally disregarding it as part of a standard investigative technique, says Alice Choi.

The criminal justice professor says this could become a common practice. Based on Supreme Court decisions handed down over the summer, officers may be tempted to tweak, or willfully violate, Miranda as a means for gathering evidence, Choi says.

In one case, Missouri v. Seibert, the officer had intentionally withheld the Miranda warning to help get a confession. “His technique was to get a confession, then Mirandize the suspect and have the suspect repeat the confession. The post-Miranda confession was then used against the suspect at trial,” Choi says. Here, the court held the post-Miranda confession was obtained in violation of Miranda and was inadmissible.

But if an inadmissible confession leads to other evidence, that evidence can be used against the suspect at trial, the court determined. Choi notes that in U.S. v. Patane, an ex-felon interrupted an ATF officer while he was attempting to administer Miranda. The suspect then admitted he owned a firearm and revealed where he kept it. The court found the firearm was admissible, she says.

“It’s a battle of individual constitutional rights versus effective criminal investigations,” she says. “We have a system where we rely on officers to do independent investigations to prove guilt. The next big question is if they’re allowed to find evidence through ill-gotten confessions, to what extent does that erode the Fifth Amendment?”

While some may say this is just good policing, Choi says, it verges on violating what Chief Justice Warren saw as Miranda’s important role in protecting citizens’ rights.

####

California State University, Sacramento • Public Affairs
6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6026 • (916) 278-6156 • infodesk@csus.edu
Bottom bar graphic back to top


California State University, Sacramento • Public Affairs
6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6026 • (916) 278-6156 • infodesk@csus.edu