Miranda Rights Should Be Available to Individuals

Miranda Rights Should Be Available to Individuals Detained by Private Security

Most people are familiar with so-called "Miranda Rights" that are named after the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Fewer people actually understand what those rights actually are or why they are important. Specifically, Miranda does not actually require police to "read rights" to suspects or prohibit them from questioning suspects and arrested persons. Instead, Miranda imposes a penalty only after the fact, by excluding from admissibility at the criminal trial of any statements made by defendants after their arrest unless they were first advised of their constitutional right not to speak to police and of their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney. Another thing that most people do not understand about "Miranda rights" is, like most other constitutional rights, they only apply to government authorities and not to private entities such as security personnel employed by retailers. That means that private security personnel are generally free to employ tactics like intimidation and threats to get suspects to divulge information incriminating them in the crimes for which they suspected.

However, the consequences of these types of admissions are typically used in any criminal trials of those suspects arising from those crimes. This is decidedly unfair to accused persons, especially since retail security personnel frequently wear police-like uniforms complete with metallic badges. When a suspect is questioned by uniformed security personnel in a small room, the situation is no less intimidating than being questioned by police. The fact that these interrogations occur under what the law refers to as the "color of apparent authority" and the trial implications of admissions under these circumstances means that Miranda should fairly apply to these situations and for the same underlying reasons, namely the constitutional right against self-incrimination.