In an arrest situation, many people often notice that the police did not read them the Miranda rights right away during the arrest. Maybe the police read the rights later, or maybe not at all. If the police do not read the Miranda rights, does that mean a case gets thrown out? The answer is almost always probably not, especially if there is other evidence the police have gathered against the accused person.
Famously, Miranda said that a defendant’s right against self incrimination and right to counsel are so important that before the government could use custodial statements from a police interrogation against the defendant at trial, the police must first advise the suspect of those constitutional rights – i.e. the right to remain silent, the right to the presence of counsel during police questioning, etc. That is, the Miranda rule boils down to a test for lawyers and judges to help determine what statements may be used against a defendant at trial and what statements cannot.
The first question is always whether the defendant gave any statements at all. If not, there is no Miranda issue. But in a case where the defendant did give a statement or made statements, the Miranda test looks at whether the statements were made while the person was “in custody,” and then also whether the person was “subject to interrogation.” Lots of cases explore the application of Miranda to specific situations, the meaning of “in custody,” and the meaning of “subject to interrogation.” Each case is unique, and the application of the Miranda rule requires a fact-specific analysis.
This post is not a substitute for legal advice. Talk to your lawyer to determine if you have a Miranda issue in your case.