When a Suspect Is in Custody, Miranda Warning Must Be Issues

Criminology In the first place it is odd that the dispatcher did not have a better description of the vehicle that was reported stolen.

And why would a young Hispanic male driving a late model "foreign car" -- in this case, a BMW -- be a suspect, since the officer doesn't know a license number or make or model of the car? And how is it that when the officer has called in to check the license plate, by now the car has been identified as having been stolen? Needless to say this could have been construed as a racial profiling, and in some cases a defense attorney might try that angle, but that is not the most important element of this scenario.

What is considered important is what the defense lawyer will present in court, and how the prosecuting attorney will argue his case. Facts of the Case The officer in this instance, Jones, is said to have placed handcuffs on John, the suspect, but does not say that John is under arrest. Still, that is considered being in custody. Jones did not give John the Miranda warning, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Dickerson v.

United States) the Miranda law remains the law of the land -- but only in certain situations. According to the Ohio Bar Association, when there is a traffic stop, Miranda warnings "…to a suspect are not triggered in the following situations: roadside questioning of a motorist following a routine traffic stop…" (www.ohiobar.org). But would this be considered "roadside questioning" when John has been handcuffed? Not very likely.

According to www.findlaw.com, the only time that police are required to issue a Miranda warning is a) when the suspect is in police custody; or b) the suspect is under interrogation. "If you aren't formally in police custody, and you aren't being interrogated, the police don't have to give you a Miranda warning" (www.findlaw.com). This means that police can use anything you say "…until those two requirements are fulfilled as evidence against you" (www.findlaw.com).

However, John could well be considered in police custody because it is defined as "anytime the police deprive you of your freedom of action in a significant way" (www.findlaw.com).

To wit, being handcuffed is certainly being in police custody, and the Ohio Bar Association restates the police custody issue: it becomes a "formal" arrest when a suspect "is not free to leave." Moreover, if police have a suspect in custody, and they do not make that suspect aware of his Miranda rights, "…nothing said in response to a custodial interrogation can be used against you; in addition, any evidence that is derived from that improper interrogations is also inadmissible" (www.findlaw.com).

However, there is a qualification to the evidence of the weapon in the trunk; that is, Officer Jones could argue that he would have found the hat and the weapon with or without John's statement that the gun was in the trunk. Hence, John could be charged with grand theft auto. So, as to the question of what charges should be brought against John, the prosecuting attorney (sometimes the District Attorney) can charge him with grand theft auto, and see how well that goes.

But this could get interesting because if I were the defense attorney, I would argue that while in custody and being questioned, John was not read his Miranda rights. So his admission that he stole the car could.