A Custodial Conversation
There they go again. My brief homage to Ronald Reagan aside, this famous phrase is also befitting one of my favorite group of people. The Supreme Court. These folks rarely fail to deliver the goods on weighty issues - that is, after all, what they do. A whole slew of highly anticipated decisions has begun coming our way, and it's only a start, but they are certainly off to a debate-inspiring start.
Miranda vs. Arizona, the ground breaking case requiring certain rights be given to criminal suspects, is under the gun. Apparently, five of the High Guys - a majority - are ready to fire away, rendering that fundamental protection severely wounded.
Here's the deal. Seventeen-year-old defendant Alvarado appeared at the police department with his parents, presumably because a detective requested it. The detective wanted to interview Alvarado about a particular so-far unsolved murder/attempted robbery. When they arrived at the station, Alvarado's parents requested that they be allowed to sit in during the interview. They were denied.
Alvarado was questioned for some two hours, during which he was prompted for more, or different, information when the detective felt that he wasn't being completely frank. In the end, Alvarado spilled the very guilty beans, and was promptly charged and convicted.
During the course of his trial, the defendant, his attorney actually, filed a motion to suppress, based on the officer's failure to Mirandize Alvarado. The motion was denied, and that ruling was upheld until it reached the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court opined that the defendant's youth and inexperience should have been considered in deciding the suppression. Then they reversed the conviction.
Typically, Miranda is required when a person is under custodial interrogation. Both must be present; if a suspect is in custody without being interrogated or vice versa, the rights don't apply. That was the primary issue in this case. Was Alvarado in custody during his two-hour interview? A majority of the Court said no, that the lower courts "considered the proper factors" in affirming the conviction.
Lower courts placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that Alvarado's parents brought him to the law enforcement facility, as opposed to being taken there in handcuffs. Also, during the interview, Alvarado was twice asked if he needed to take a break. Finally, the defendant's own words came back to haunt him, when he testififed that the lengthy meeting was "a free flow", that wasn't "coercive in any way." So, all's well that ends well? Absolutely, according the Big Guys.
Latest Articles