Opinion ID: 2453894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Protections Guaranteed By The Fifth Amendment To The United States Constitution And Article I, Section 9 Of The Alaska Constitution

Text: A criminal suspect's right to remain silent in the face of police interrogation represents one of the most fundamental aspects of our constitutional jurisprudence. [33] The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Alaska Constitution guarantee that no person shall be compelled in any criminal [case or proceeding] to be a witness against himself. [34] While the core protection is a prohibition on compelling a defendant to testify against himself at trial, [35] the privilege against self-incrimination is also enforceable in any setting where a suspect is subject to custodial police interrogation. [36] In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court recognized that because custodial interrogation involves inherent pressures that can compel a suspect to speak against his will, [u]nless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. [37] The Court therefore held that [i]n order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored. [38] The Court specified that prior to questioning, a suspect in police custody must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. [39] The Miranda warnings are concrete constitutional guidelines that act as critical procedural safeguards of a suspect's privilege against self-incrimination. [40] The warnings are absolute prerequisite[s] in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere. [41] For that reason, [f]ailure to administer Miranda warnings creates a presumption of compulsion, and any unwarned statements must be excluded from evidence. [42] , [43] Not only must police apprise a suspect of his constitutional rights by administering the Miranda warnings, they must also fully honor the exercise of those rights: Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [44] Post- Miranda United States Supreme Court decisions have reiterated that a suspect's right to cut off questioning includes the right to control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation, and that the police must scrupulously honor[] a suspect's invocation of his right to silence. [45]