Opinion ID: 1670476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Miranda Implications

Text: [4,5] In Miranda v. Arizona, [4] the U.S. Supreme Court held that authorities must advise suspects that they have certain rights before subjecting them to a custodial interrogation. If they do not, any incriminating statements obtained during the interrogation are prone to suppression. [5] However, by limiting the sweep of Miranda to cases of custodial interrogation, the Court held that Miranda rights apply only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him [or her] `in custody.' [6] In the absence of such restriction, authorities may freely question a suspectand use any resulting statements at trialeven without advising a suspect of his or her Miranda rights. All parties agree that the officers did not advise Tyler of his Miranda rights. The question, then, is whether Tyler was in custody during the interrogation. If Tyler was in custody, then his confession should have been suppressed and its use at trial violated Tyler's Fifth Amendment rights. [6-8] In resolving whether a suspect was in police custody for Miranda purposes, `the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.' [7] Whether the requisite degree of restraint occurred is to be determined based on how a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would perceive his [or her] circumstances. [8] In other words, we must examine `all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation' and determine `how a reasonable person in the position of the individual being questioned would gauge the breadth of his or her freedom of action.' [9]