Are Statements Made To Police Prior To Miranda Warnings Admissible?

Can statements made to police prior to “Miranda” warnings (“You have the right to remain silent…”) be used as evidence against you?

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 458, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1619, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 714 (1964), the Supreme Court recognized that “[u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.” Accordingly, the Miranda Court determined that the fifth and fourteenth amendments’ prohibition against compelled self-incrimination require that custodial interrogation be preceded “by advice to the putative defendant that he has the right to remain silent and also the right to the presence of any attorney.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, 384 (1981).

In State v. Graves, 114 N.J.Super. 222, 226 (App.Div.1971), the New Jersey Appellate Division held, “when the interrogation process shifts from investigatory to accusatory-when its focus is on the accused and its purpose is to elicit a confession-our adversary system begins to operate and the accused is entitled to the presence of counsel as well as to be given the other Miranda warnings.” The United States Supreme Court held in Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969), that the concept of Miranda warnings is not restricted to questioning that takes place in a police station. So when should they be triggered as necessary?

A “custodial interrogation is not susceptible of an exact definition…the determination…must be made on a case-by-case basis.” U.S. v. Leese, 176 F.3d 740, 743 (3d Cir.1999)(citing Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 798 (3d Cir.1974), and U.S. v. Clark, 425 F.2d 827, (3d. Cir.1970)). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is: ‘whether there is a “formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'” Id. (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1993))(quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)). “Where…the individual has not been openly arrested when the statements are made, ‘something must be said or done by the authorities, wither in their manner of approach or in the tone or extent of their questioning, which indicates they would not have heeded a request to depart or to allow the suspect to do so.'” Leese, 176 F.3d at 743 (quoting Steigler at 799)(quoting U.S. v. Hall, 421 F.2d 540, 545 (2d Cir.1969)).

It is arguable then, under case law, that if you do not feel free to leave the presence of a police officer, then you are being interrogated, regardless of the locale. If illicit activity is suspected and the topic of conversation, then it is appropriate and necessary to be read your rights.