Analyzing the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution

Elements that trigger Miranda

The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, set out the Miranda
rights. There are two elements that are essential before a police officer is required to give the
suspect a Miranda warning. First, the suspect must be in the custody of police and second, the
said suspect must be under interrogation (FindLaw, 2019). It is very important to know and
understand these two elements that must happen before giving the Miranda warning.
If a suspect is not in police custody and they are not being interrogated by the police, then
the police are not obligated to give the warning. This means that any information that the police
gets from you when you are not in their custody, and they are not interrogating you can be used
against you as evidence. To prevent this and to be granted the Miranda rights, a suspect must
ensure that they are in the custody of the police and they are being interrogated. If this happens,
then the police must give a Miranda warning. The Miranda rights include the suspect having the
right not to say anything and choose to remain silent. To know that the police can use anything
said during interrogation in a court as evidence. That the suspect has a right to seek the services
of a lawyer and keep the lawyer during interrogation, if the suspect is not able to pay for the
services of a lawyer, the state can appoint a lawyer to represent them. The suspect has the right to
choose not to say anything during the interrogation, and in this case, the interrogation comes to
an end. Finally, the suspect can choose to have their lawyer present during their interrogation,
and the interrogation will commence once the lawyer is present; before then, the interrogation
must be halted.

Defense Attorney Argument Regarding Custody

Understanding custodial interrogation is crucial for knowing situations that call for
Miranda warnings. Miranda rights are not only triggered in suspect arrests situations only

FIFTH AMMENDMENT 3
(Shouse, 2020). There are other situations that the rights can be triggered. Custody can include
any situation that proves that the individual lacked the freedom to leave (Justia, 2021). A suspect
does not have to be arrested using the formal procedure of arrest for them to be said to be under
police custody. There are many factors considered by the courts to determine the occurrence of
custodial interrogation. One of the approaches used is examining whether a reasonable person in
that situation where the police are interviewing or questioning him felt they are free to leave as
held in Ramirez v. State,739. If they do not feel they are free to leave, then they are in custody,
and Miranda warnings ought to be given. In this approach, the Court does not look at the
physical restrictions of the suspect to determine they are in custody, but also it considers
psychological restrictions of the suspect’s actions to be able to leave. In this case, the defence
attorney can argue that Kirkpatrick was in police custody as he was the main suspect of the
murder, and he did not feel he was free to leave during the interview. This would prove that he
was in custody, and the police should have given Miranda warnings.

a) Counterargument by the Prosecution in Response to Defence Attorney

Argument

Having a suspect in custody means that their freedom of movement has been limited. It
entails the suspect being held in handcuffs, taken to the police car and booked in a police facility.
If the suspect is not under police custody, Miranda rights are not required. In some cases, the
police question or interview suspects and that information are used as evidence against the
suspects (Rhydholm, 2014). In this case, the police interviewed Kirkpatrick in his home
Oklahoma and used his interview statements as evidence against him. The prosecution can claim
that Kirkpatrick was not in police custody during the interview and the interview did not amount

FIFTH AMMENDMENT 4
to interrogation; hence they were not obligated to read the Miranda rights to the suspect, and the
information offered by the suspect was admissible as evidence.
b) Factors Pertaining to Custody

To determine whether a suspect would consider themselves to be in police custody, the
Court should look at four factors that include; 1) the way the suspect was approached by the
police for questioning or interviewing 2) The place, reason and manner of questioning,3) the
scope of confrontation with evidence pointing out to the guilt of the suspect, and 4) whether the
suspect was told that they are free to leave the location of questioning (Neelakanta, 2011).
Arguments by the Defense Attorney Suggesting that the Officers’ Questions rise to the

Level of Interrogation

When the suspect is asked direct questions by the police, or the police make direct
comments and act in a manner that is likely to invoke the suspect to offer incriminating
responses, it is regarded as interrogation. If the information given by the suspect was not granted
voluntarily without the involvement of the police, then interrogation is said to have taken place.
In this case, the police obtained an interview statement from Kirkpatrick. It goes ahead to show
that there were questions asked by the police, which Kirkpatrick was expected to answer. He did
not offer the information freely because there is evidence of interview statements meaning
questions were asked that made Kirkpatrick give incriminating information that can be used
against him in a court of law. This proves that interrogation took place as the police asked
Kirkpatrick questions in an interview; the interview questions led Kirkpatrick to provide
incriminating information. The police should have read the Miranda warning to him as there was
custodial interrogation taking place.

Counterargument by the Prosecutor

FIFTH AMMENDMENT 5
On the issue of the interview questions amounting to interrogation, the prosecution can argue
that the suspect was not in custody and was informed that he did not have to take the interview
hence the suspect went ahead to offer the interview responses voluntarily. The prosecution can
also argue that there was no custodial interrogation as the suspect was interviewed in his own
and not in a police station hence there was no intimidation that would suggest he was in custody
and could not leave and choose not to participate in the interview.
Factors Pertaining Interrogation

Interrogation involves direct questioning of the suspect by the law enforcement
concerning a crime. The Court evaluates the police actions and words to determine whether
interrogation took place. It looks at whether the officer knew that his words or actions would
make the suspect give incriminating statements. If the questioning had the ability to invoke
incriminating statements from the suspect, then interrogation took place, and this requires the
police to read the Miranda warnings.

How Judge Would Likely Rule Regarding Need for Miranda

The judge will look at whether the suspect was in custody and there was interrogation to
decide whether the Miranda rights were triggered to decide if the interview statements can be
admitted as evidence against Kirkpatrick. Under Miranda, Interrogation also includes statements
or actions by the police that are likely to lead the suspect to make incriminating statements as
held in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 (Neelakanta, 2011). If the police apply a technique that they
know is likely to make the suspect give information that incriminates him, that will be regarded
as interrogation. In this case, Kirkpatrick was the main suspect; hence he was not free to leave
during the questioning by the police; the police also gathered a lot of incriminating evidence

FIFTH AMMENDMENT 6
from his questioning, proving that there was an interrogation. The Court is likely to rule that the
two elements of custody and interrogation were present; hence the interview statements cannot
be used as evidence against Kirkpatrick as the police failed to give Miranda warnings during his
interrogation.

FIFTH AMMENDMENT 7

References

FindLaw. (2019, January 15). Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning. Findlaw.
Retrieved December 9, 2021, from https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-
rights/miranda-warnings-and-police-questioning.html
Justia. (2021, May 18). Custodial Interrogation. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/custodial-interrogation/
Neelakanta, S. P. (2011, May 6). Cloudflare. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/a-defandant-must-be-informed-of-their-
miranda-rights-when-in-custody-and-subject-to-interrogation
Rhydholm, J. (2014, June 17). Miranda: The Meaning of “Custodial Interrogation”.
Www.nolo.com. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from https://www.nolo.com/legal-
encyclopedia/miranda-the-meaning-custodial-interrogation.html
Shouse, N. (2020). When Miranda Warning Applies. Miranda Warning. Retrieved December 9,
2021, from https://www.mirandawarning.org/whenmirandawarningapplies.html