Court Opinion

ID: 9733129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:54:18.857977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:38.682944
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). Until this decision, our court has interpreted Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), for purposes of state law enforcement, as requiring a law enforcement *700officer to warn a suspect during a custodial interrogation of the right to stop answering questions at any time.11 write to urge law enforcement officers to continue to read this "fifth right." Reading the "fifth right" provides suspects with a fuller and more explicit statement of their rights and reminds law enforcement officers of their responsibility to cease questioning if the suspect indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he or she wishes to consult an attorney or stop the interrogation.2
Reading the "fifth right" will not, in all likelihood, inhibit confessions3 and can only enhance police professionalism and observance of Fifth Amendment law.4 Furthermore, the reading of the "fifth right" may help police build a stronger case. The reading of the "fifth right" may be an important factor to a court determining whether the state proved that the suspect was advised of and understood his or her constitutional rights, that the suspect intelligently waived these rights, and that the *701suspect made the statements voluntarily. United States v. DiGiacomo, 579 F.2d 1211, 1214 (10th Cir. 1978).
I write separately to urge law enforcement officers to continue giving the same Miranda warnings they have given in this state for at least the last twenty years.

See, e.g., Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 78, 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978); Micale v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 370, 374, 251 N.W.2d 458 (1977); Grennier v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 204, 213, 234 N.W.2d 316 (1975); State v. Hernandez, 61 Wis. 2d 253, 257, 212 N.W.2d 118 (1973).

Law enforcement officers have a duty to "respect the constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice." Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.

See, e.g., Study, Interrogations in New Haven: The Impact of Miranda, 76 Yale L.J. 1519, 1536 (1967); R.J. Medalie, L. Zeitz, & P. Alexander, Custodial Police Interrogation in our Nation's Capital: The Attempt to Implement Miranda, 66 Mich. L. Rev. 1347, 1372-79 (1968); Note, Miranda v. Arizona, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 645, 654-657 (1967).

Cf. M. Orfield, Deterrence, Perjury, and the Heater Factor: An Exclusionary Rule in The Chicago Criminal Courts, 63 U. Colo. L. Rev. 75, 80-81, 83, 124-25 (1992).