1 interrogation process and law chapter 10. smart talk: contemporary interviewing and interrogation...

1

Interrogation Process and Law

Chapter 10

Smart Talk: Contemporary Interviewing and InterrogationBy Denise Kindschi Gosselin

PRENTICE HALL©2006 Pearson Education, Inc.Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

10-2

Rule of Law

Those that execute the law must rely on the application of known principles or laws, and those principles must be applied uniformly and fairly to all citizens

Also referred to as the supremacy of law



10-3

Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



10-4

Fifth Amendment Protections The Fifth Amendment

provides protection from a person being incriminated by compelled testimonial communication

Compel means to cause or bring about by force, threats, or overwhelming pressure

Testimonial is a communication that explicitly or implicitly relates or discloses information that is the expression of the person



10-5

What is NOT covered by the Fifth Amendment

Requiring a person in custody to stand or walk in a police lineup, to speak prescribed words, to model particular clothing, or to give samples of handwriting, fingerprints, or blood does not compel him to incriminate himself within the meaning of the clause (Schmerber v. California, 1966).



10-6

Totality of the Circumstances Test

The totality of the circumstances test is one where the court focuses on all of the circumstances surrounding a situation, rather than any one factor

The court will typically look at all of the physical or psychological pressures to determine if they unduly influence the accused to make a statement



10-7

Miranda Rights

These procedural safeguards must be stated prior to questioning:

the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent,

that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him,

and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney.

If he cannot afford an attorney, counsel will be provided at government expense



10-8

When are Miranda warnings required? Miranda warnings or

their equivalent must be given prior to questioning (direct or indirect) These rights do

NOT have to be provided verbatim (word for word)

which is initiated by a state actor

AND that person has been taken into police custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action by the police in any significant way.



10-9

When is a waiver of Miranda rights valid?

There are three measures of whether the individual has properly waived his or her right to remain silent

The waiver must be made voluntarily

The waiver must be made knowingly

The waiver must be made intelligently



10-10

The Voluntary Requirement

The Miranda waiver must be made voluntarily The government

must prove that the waiver was not the result of coercion or other factors which adversely influenced the defendant’s exercise of free will

Torture, threats, promises of leniency, or other inducements may affect the voluntariness of a waiver

If the person is intoxicated to the point that he cannot understand his constitutional rights, the waiver is not valid



10-11

The Knowing Requirement

The Miranda Waiver must be made knowingly The

government must prove that the defendant knew and understood his rights

Providing Miranda rights to a person who does not speak English, for example, cannot result in a knowing waiver of those rights

If the defendant is suffering from mental disability that renders him incapable of understanding, a waiver may not be valid



10-12

The Intelligence Requirement

The Miranda Waiver must be made intelligently The government

must establish that the defendant intelligently relinquished those rights, that he understood he was agreeing to answer questions.

This does not suggest that the suspect is intelligent or have any particular IQ in order to make an intelligent waiver of his rights



10-13

Some Exceptions to the Miranda Requirement

Voluntary Statements Statements initiated

voluntarily by the defendant when there is no interrogation DO NOT require Miranda Rights regardless of whether the suspect is in custody or not

Public Safety Exception In situations where

there is immediate or impending danger to the public safety, police may arrest a suspect and ask questions to elicit information to remove the threat to the public WITHOUT providing Miranda Rights



10-14

Right to Counsel under Miranda

If a suspect in custody and subjected to interrogation requests an attorney ALL QUESTIONING MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!

The waiver for an attorney under Miranda must also be made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently



10-15

Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.



10-16

The Right to Counsel under the Sixth Amendment

A person who has been formally charged with a crime CANNOT be interrogated for that crime without an attorney present, whether they are in custody or seen on the street

This right attaches: Through a formal

charge in court A Preliminary

hearing An Indictment An Information An Arraignment



10-17

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



10-18

Fourteenth Amendment Interrogation Application

Through the Fourteenth Amendment the rules that are constitutionally required apply equally to both Federal and State police action through the Due Process Clause

The Exclusionary Rule was applied to State Action through Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine was applied through Won Sun v. US. (1963)

Compelled statements are excluded through Rogers v. Richmond (1961)



10-19

What is the Exclusionary Rule? It requires that evidence obtained by

police in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel provision, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment’s protection from illegal search and seizure would be excluded from use in trial against the defendant



10-20

What is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine? The illegal search or

interrogation taints the evidence obtained, as well as facts discovered by the processes initiated by the unlawful procedure and that evidence must be also excluded!

This means that evidence indirectly obtained when one’s rights are violated may also be excluded from use in a criminal trial

Sometimes called derivative or secondary evidence

It is the evidence resulting from an illegal search or illegal interrogation



10-21

When is a statement compelled? Yes, in most cases

if to obtain a Miranda waiver There was a

promise of leniency

There were threats to arrest members of a suspect’s family

A suspect may make a valid waiver of Miranda rights but the statements may be violating the Fourteenth Amendment based on coercive tactics used by the police to obtain the statement



10-22

Factors in determining “coercive” Age of the suspect Experience of the Suspect Intelligence or Mental Illness Alcohol or Drug Intoxication Physical Condition of the Suspect Length of the Interrogation



10-23

The Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized



10-24

Fourth Amendment Interrogation Application Since the application

of the exclusionary rule to the states, a confession, statement, or admission, which is made by a person who is illegally in custody may be excluded because it is evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure

To pick-up a suspect and take him to the police station for interrogation the officer must have probable cause for an arrest of that person OR the detainment must be voluntary (Kaupp v. Texas, 2003)



10-25

Police Power of Arrest

When a police officer has reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime This is the arrest

based on probable cause

When the police officer personally sees someone commit a crime

When an arrest warrant has been issued



10-26

Probable Cause

Probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances and is more than just the suspicion of the officer

Personal observations

Hearsay Prior criminal

record, furtive conduct, evasive answers, or the area

1 interrogation process and law chapter 10. smart talk: contemporary interviewing and interrogation...

Documents

person slide

pearson education

contemporary interviewing

smart talk

upper saddle river

interrogation process

supremacy of law slide

process of law