Miranda warnings are only mandatory for statements made while the individual is being interrogated while in custody, provided they are in custody legally. As per the stipulations of the court, custody for Miranda warnings can be determined first by analyzing the interrogation circumstances and determining if a reasonable individual under such circumstances would want the interrogation to stop. The Supreme Court left the task of evaluating the interrogation circumstances to police officers and lower courts. Their approach would help them figure out the influence that the circumstances may have had on the suspect’s will to terminate the interrogation. In recent times, the action of establishing whether a suspect is in custody has been considered as objective, and the possible subjective views held by the suspect or the police officers have been deemed irrelevant (Worrall, 2018). According to the Supreme Court, the primary principle of the Miranda warning is whether or not a reasonable individual would feel that their right to terminate an interrogation was restricted if they were in the same situation.
Several factors also come into play when determining custody for Miranda purposes. One of the determining factors is the location where the suspect made their statement. The suspect could be considered in custody if he/she made the statement in a law enforcement officer. Two, the party that initiated the contact can also determine custody for Miranda purposes. If the instigators of contact are police officers, the suspect can be considered to be in custody. Additionally, the authorities’ intent at the time of apprehension can determine custody, especially when their subjective views or personal beliefs are thought to affect the individual’s perception of freedom. The vice versa of this is also a determining factor – that is, when the suspect’s subjective views prompt a response from the authorities that influences the individual’s perception of their freedom(Worrall, 2018). If either of these factors leads a suspect into believing that they are not at liberty to stop the interrogation, then the defendant is considered to be in custody. Moreover, the focus of the investigation, as perceived by a reasonable person placing themselves in the defendant’s position, can ascertain custody. More so, the court considers the presence or absence of probable cause and the extent of awareness held by the defendant. The existence of probable cause signifies that the defendant is in custody as opposed to the non-existence of a probable cause.
Other important factors of consideration include the duration of the interrogation, the number of police officers present during the interrogation, the familiarity of the surroundings where the defendant was questioned, the amount of physical restraint the defendant was subjected to, and the character of the interrogation. A long duration of interrogation – one where the defendant is held for more than 24 hours – is evidence that a defendant is in custody (Worrall, 2018). Further, custodial interrogation is confirmed when there is more than one police officer present in the interrogation room, the surrounding is deemed as unfamiliar grounds by the defendant, and there is a substantial degree of physical restraint subjected to the defendant. The Supreme Court demands that these factors are considered in their entirety instead of a few of them.
References
Worrall, J. L. (2018). Criminal Procedure; 3rd Edition. Pearson.
