Voluntary Statement and Corrections

Custodial Interrogation vs. Voluntary Statements In legal and criminal justice terms, as well as in their application in everyday life, there is a considerable degree of distinction between a voluntary statement and custodial interrogation. Nonetheless, there are a number of key similarities between these terms. Both of these proceedings (the issuing of a statement and an interrogation while in custody) can incriminate. Moreover, it is also possible for what begins as an opportunity to issue a voluntary statement to end as an instance of custodial interrogation.

One of the key differences between these proceedings is the liberty of the person issuing administration to either federal, state or local authorities. A voluntary statement is made to the aforementioned authorities without an individual being compelled to make a statement. Frequently, voluntary statements are made at will on the part of the person making them. Individuals may choose to go to a police station and comment on a criminal investigation, a potential criminal investigation, or other areas of interest to law enforcement officials.

Oftentimes there is a degree of spontaneity involved with the issuing of these statements. Individuals are not required to make such statements, and make them because they want to do so. Due to this aspect of voluntary statements, they are frequently not accompanied by the presence of a lawyer. Additionally, they are typically not made while an individual is under arrest. Subsequently, these statements do not tend to be preceded by a reading of the Miranda rights, although these statements can be self-incriminating, both in theory and in practice.

Custodial interrogation typically takes place when individuals have been detained by law enforcement officials. This sort of detainment can take place in formal settings such as police headquarters, in addition to informal settings such as in a police vehicle. One of the most notable indicators of a custodial interrogation is if one is under arrest. When one has been arrested, any statements that one makes to the authorities are part of a custodial interrogation.

It is pivotal to realize that individuals can have the advisory of an attorney when they are subjected to custodial interrogation. Moreover, they should be read their Miranda rights prior to a custodial interrogation. Part of the Miranda rights informs individuals that they actually have the right to seek legal counsel prior to speaking with law enforcement officials -- and, thereby, partaking in a custodial interrogation.

If individuals are not appraised of their Miranda rights, then the information they yield during a custodial interrogation (specifically the things they have said) can be considered inadmissible in a court of law (Duke Law Journal, 1978, p. 1497). In such instances, it is possible for individuals to go free. The pivotal distinction between a custodial interrogation and a voluntary statement is the freedom allowed to the individual speaking with authorities. People must be detained during a custodial interrogation.

Such detainment can either manifest in the form of a formal arrest, or in any other instance in which authorities do not permit individuals to leave the site in which they were giving statements. Thus, it is possible for an individual to go to a police statement of his own volition to give a voluntary statement, and end up in a situation in which he or she is in a custodial interrogation. One of the determining factors in this circumstances is if the authorities disallow that person from leaving.

If, during the course of questioning, an individual decides he or she does not want to continue questioning and the authorities do not allow him or her to leave the room, that person has transitioned from giving a voluntary statement to enduring custodial interrogation. There are a couple of court cases that help to clarify the distinction between voluntary statements and custodial interrogation. One of the most notorious of these was Miranda v.

Arizona, which helped to establish the precedent that Miranda rights must be read to individuals prior to their arrest or their statements cannot be used in court. In this case, it was established that custodial interrogation is "questioning established by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way" (Duke Law Journal, 1978, p. 1499).

Therefore, a person can be making a voluntary statement, and as soon as his liberty of action has been significantly deprived, he or she is in a custodial interrogation situation. A different court case that helped to clarify the distinction between a voluntary statement and a custodial interrogation occurred in 1977. In the case of Oregon v. Mathiason, the defendant went to an Oregon.