How Miranda Rights Work

was like forty five minutes ago. It's a call back. So I guess that was clever in Cherry's book. That's the thing. Like, I didn't even consider that clever, you know, juvenile maybe so Miranda from Sex in the City. So what was your response to that one. I don't remember what I said. I thought it was really clever. We'll just skip over that. You said you have the right to remain fabulous. Oh yeah, that's right. So that's the

recap of a conversation we had a little while ago. Everybody, well, people always say that I want to know what happens behind the scenes. Just tomfoolery. There you go, Chuck, I know that. Uh, you and I have both been arrested many times and we've done some time in the stir and all that, so we know what Miranda rights are. True. But the average person also knows what Miranda rights are because they're so ubiquitous on every cop show, every lawyer show,

every every show. I think they show up on like e er and still and it's on, right, I have no idea. I'm like season I have no idea. I don't think it is and I had a pretty good long run, sure, But Miranda rights are just this thing that have become totally ingrained in our culture. We can all say it. Well, let's say it together. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a corps of law.

But hey, buddy, don't fret. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Right and then over time, apparently some agencies have added and if you waive these rights, you can invoke them at any time. Yeah, I hadn't heard that one. They know, they hadn't made it to TV yet, really, right, you know, it just goes like I'm not even gonna tell you that. Yeah, Castle, he's all business. Yeah. Is he a cop though? And I

think he's a private investigator, although I'm not sure. So he wouldn't have to mirandize anybody, but he's Castle, so he does. I've never seen it. I love Nathan Fillin though, Oh who doesn't. Yeah, he's a nice guy. But this this idea that Miranda rights are. You know, they're everywhere and everybody knows them and knows what they You know that they exist. But the first of all, the case

behind him, I think is probably unknown. And then secondly, like what they're designed to do, really, the real nuts and bolts of it, I hadn't. It hadn't really occurred to me, even though it's pretty self ever once you think about it. Yeah, and it seems really straightforward, but it can't give a little tricky uh, which will discuss how that happens. Well. So the idea of the Miranda rights is fairly recent. Um goes back to nineteen sixty six,

the case called Miranda versus Arizona. The Arizona Yeah, yeah, which is like the legal profession came and be bothered to include the s when they abbreviate versus you know. And we should also point out that, UM, it wasn't just this one case. Uh, it was Miranda via Arizona gets all the press because the name Miranda, but it was actually four cases that they consolidated. UM. But we want to give Vignera v. New York West over the United States and California v. Stewart their due as being

part of this thing. And they basically all the cases were similar in that the UM there were confessions after interrogations, UM, and those confessions were used against these various people. Right. But Miranda though the lawyers of these UM, well not just us, I mean everybody does. It's called it's the Miranda case, the Miranda laws, the Miranda rights, your Miranda

I is, you know, UM. But the the the whole point behind these in all of the cases, the that the complainants had was that they're the people who committed these crimes and made these confessions and we're later convicted for him. We're not aware that they didn't have to talk to the police. And this is actually the Miranda case goes back to nineteen six But the American right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to

refrain from self incrimination. That goes back to you said, the Fifth Amendment basically says that you don't have to tell on yourself. The cops can't make you talk, is what that. Yeah, but until nineteen sixty six they I guess you just needed to be you know, up on your constitutional knowledge. And then in nineteen sixty six they eventually will get to the case. They said, you know,

maybe we should start telling people this when we arrest them. Um. So let's go back in time to uh in Phoenix, Arizona, UM, the cops picked up Ernesto Miranda for questioning and a kidnapping. In rate case, his car was spotted nearer the scene of the crime. He was called in. When he got there, he was like, I didn't do this. Man like he was completely cooperative. He's like, I didn't do any of this.

Two hours later, an interrogation they had he was not identified in a lineup, but the cops said, the girl identifies you in the lineup, and he went, oh, well, I guess I think his direct quote was well, I guess I ought to tell you about it then, And so the cops lied to him. And this is a clear case of you know, like not doing things the right way. Well, this no, the Supreme Court is upheld the use of deception by police in interrogation. They can lie their their tails off to you, but not if

you're not Miranda. I. That was the point is he didn't know that he could just be quiet and not say anything, so he just volunteered the information, signed a written confession. And that's the whole point. And that's what the justices in the Supreme Court who heard the Miranda case and all the other cases that combined to make it um we're getting at was that you, when you are being interrogated by the place you're in their custody, they are allowed to use deception. They are allowed to

um use all sorts of tactics to core coerce. You two talk, But if you're not aware that you don't have to talk, then what you're saying amounts to an involuntary confession and hence shouldn't be able to be used against you because you have a constitutional right against self incrimination. If you're in for that, you have that right. Then you are making the decision to go ahead and confess

against yourself, and you're waiving that right. Yes, and that can be used in court exactly, so they give you the option essentially. So this is what the whole case was about. UM. In nineteen sixty six, like we said, the Supreme Court heard this case and ruled he was convicted we should say, based on that confession and sentenced to thirty years I believe, and that the Supreme Court case was part of an appeal from that three years

later they heard this case. Yeah. And apparently, like the the other three people probably represent even more than just those four cases total. Usually when the Supreme Court here's something, there's a lot of it going on in the courts. UM. And they said in a five to four decision, you know what, the the suspect has to be read his rights,

which will now call his Miranda rights. Yeah. And they specifically said, UM, prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial and terror ation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination. But the key there is custodial interrogation and established a couple of things. Is one, you can't self incriminate from the moment you're in custody, um, so like it's not like you're on trial or something, and

that any confession is uh involuntary basically. And again the reason that they're differentiating between in custody and not in custody is because once you're in custody, the cops can do things like lie to you or something like that. That's right, um. And in custody is the three key words taken into custody or is where all the gray

area has been since then and still is today. Yeah, because they were pretty clear in their ruling, like, yeah, this person has to be read their rights and how let's even print some cards for police officers to carry around with them so they can read off of card if they have to. Yeah, and we should point out that Miranda, actually they retried him without his confession and his girlfriend, um said he confessed to me, so that

was used in court. So he was found guilty again since the twenty to thirty years again, paroled after five years and then sold those little Miranda cards with his autograph on him for a while for like a buck fifty. And then he was stabbed to death in a bar fight in Yes, and the suspect who stabbed him was read his Miranda rights and so he never talked and he walked. Really yeah, oh my god. The irony. It's definitely irony and like the truest form of the word.

That's right, man. So custodial interrogation is is one of the keys here. Um, in custody is where it gets a little hinky. Like if you're in the back of a police car and you get your handcuffs on, then you're in custody. That's pretty straightforward. Or even if you don't have handcuffs on, if you're if the cops lock you in the car and you're you're are it's understood by you that you're not allowed to get out. You're

in police custody. Right. The official definition of custody and the Mirand decision is quote unquote denial of complete freedom of action. Right, But that's open to interpretation. You know it is because, um, you know, if you're being if you're handcuffed and you're putting the back of a locked police car, you're obviously denied freedom of action. You obviously

have to be mirandized. Right. You can bang your head on the little clear glass in front of you, right, What were you saying in police chases like the the you can defecate or urinate or whatever, do whatever you want,

but that is not freedom of action. Um. It's been brought up though, that because of the um the legal authority that cops represent with their uniforms and their outwardly worn guns and you know, tasers, all that stuff, their mirroade sunglasses, that they have some sort of um, they project a sort of uh, just talking to a cop, a person might feel detained. Yeah, it's an implied UM. Yeah, I think it's like an implied detention. Like the cop came to my front door and said he had some

questions for me regarding a crime. I don't think I would feel even though it's within my right, I don't think I would feel like I was able to say, no, actually, I'm gonna go to the grocery store right now, right exactly, and just walk past him and get in my car, or even I'm gonna have to ask you guys to leave, which again you said it is your right to do.

They haven't placed you into custody, but you you don't have to be Mirandi's in this situation because you can tell the cops to leave if you are in an interrogation room and you tell the cops to leave, they're not gonna listen to you. If they're on your front doorstep, then you tell them to leave. They are supposed to listen to you, and because of that, you're not being you You have freedom of movement. You can go back in your house, you can go to the grocery store.

You can tell the cops to leave. So even though the perception might be that you are being detained by the cops just by their very presence, and you don't feel like you can tell them to leave, the law isn't this. This law isn't designed to let you be slippery, right, Like a traffic stop, for instance, is a is a

kind of a not weird. But if you get stopped by a cop and you'd say, um, you know, I've got five pounds of weed in my trunk, by the way, mr officer, you caught me, that can be used in court because that is a non custodial situation, right, which is weird. Though I didn't realize that a traffic stop is considered non custodials. That means you can just drive off, because then if you can't, then that's a custodial situation.

So does that mean that you can drive off legally or does that mean that the courts just it is a gray area that the court of that means you're fleeing. That means you're evading, evading what arrest the traffic stop. Okay, well, then that means you can't leave. You don't have freedom of movement. Therefore that's a custodial situation and you should have to be mirandized when you're pulled over. Well, hey, you talked to the Supreme Court. My friend, I've been trying.

But I do have a question if there are any um constitutional lawyers or any kind of lawyer really who knows what they're talking about. Defense attorney. Um, I'm very curious about that, Like, are you allowed legally to just drive off once a cop pulls you over since it's a non custodial situation. My answer is no. I would imagine no too, because every time you do, they well, because you have committed a crime and the in the cop has pulled you over. Maybe uh, I don't know.

I mean that's where the language gets tricky. You're not in custody, maybe you're temporary detained. A bit of there's some specific language that allows for this. And I would never like argue this with a cop who pulled me over. That's not what I'm getting a genuinely like, I'm genuinely curious. If you can't drive off, then how is it a non constidial situation? That's my question. That's a good question, um.

But that shows the slippery slope in the gray area, you know, right, And like you said, I mean if you say, hey, I've got five pounds of weed in my trunk and the cop never mirandized you, and then after they says, well, you're under arrest, and then he mirandizes you and you shut up. From that point on, they can still use that initial exact confession because it

was non custodial. Uh. And here's the other thing. A lot of people, well not a lot of people, some folks may be confused by if you're not read your miranda rights, then you just you get released or whatever.

Not true at all. That just means that they can't use what you have said in court, and any ancillary uh, incriminating evidence that came from that confession can't be used either, right, Like if they arrest you and you say they tell you you're placed under arrest, and then they're like, so, um, we're going to get some tacos rather than here's what we have to tell you about your Miranda rights. And

then you say, I've got a bunch of weed on me. Like, they can't use that confession about the weed two against you because you hadn't been mirandized. You've been told that the cops wanted tacos. Yeah, I wonder what keeps someone from voluntarily talking about evidence so it won't be Yeah, man, we are Criminal Minds right here. I'm sure there's workarounds for all this. We like Mandy Patinken and like the rest of the cast right here at this table. No,

it Isn'tny in Criminal Minds. I don't know. He's in Homeland. I watch that. He's also in The Prince's Pride. He's in Nego Montoya Monday at Patinken. He was also the alien cop in Alien Nation. A lot of people don't know that, but Jimmy Cohn, you never saw Alien Nation. That was that good. That was a great movie. It always looked silly to me. I'll tell you what when you're it is a great movie. Ye, Yeah, it was nothing like I had, like a good plot and it was like to live in Die in l a with

aliens right or enemy mine on Earth? Yeah, I never saw that one. It was. It was just kind of the same deal. It's like it's Lucas A Jr. In an alien suit and Dennis Quaid, right, Uh, Randy Quid, Dennis Quaid. It definitely wasn't Randy. It was Denis Quid. I'm pretty sure, all right. So Miranda Rights the requisite meandering tangent. Uh. So there's an important thing we haven't covered yet, um, in regards to Miranda Rights, And it was recently I got a lot of press with the

bombings in Boston, and that is the public safety exception. Um. In the case of the the Boston bombing. What was his name, Uh, Joe Car Sarnia. Okay, so Joe Car. Joe Car did Joe Car. There's a lot of ways to say it that are wrong. And then there's one right one which I may have had in there. So he is in the hospital. They everyone knows what happened.

You know that the bombings went off. The one brother was killed, they called the other one, uh, and he was wounded, and so he was in a hospital and they had what they called an urgent public safety interview in the hospital without reading him his rights. He's asking for an attorney. They're like, you're not getting an attorney. Why why don't you tell us what's going on? And he did, Yeah, he did. He confessed the bombing. He

told them about um, possible other bombs. I think that's how they found out that the apartment was possibly rigged with explosives, or at very least there were explosives in his apartment, his brother's apartment. UM. And they found all this out by denying him his right to keep quiet. Yeah, And a lot of people were saying, well, you guys just blew the case. You guys, why didn't you mirandize him?

And it was because of this public safety exemption that came about UM that the Supreme Court ruled on in Yeah, New York v. Quarrels. Benjamin Quarrels was in custody at a grocery store in nineteen eighty and rape victim had identified him and the cop frisked him and said, hey, you've got an empty gun holster. Here is there a gun nearby? And he was like, yeah, it's right over there. Cop went, got the gun unloaded. It obviously secured the scene, and that became a court case because he was the

gun evidence was thrown out. An appellate court agreed, and then later on the Supreme Court said, no, you know what that's called. Uh, you know, securing the scene. That's a public safety exception. You can't have a gun loaded gun in there. You can't have bombs waiting to go off potentially somewhere else. So forget the mirandizing. You need to secure everything, right and um, once that, once that threat to public safety is secured, then you have to

mirandize them. Yeah, in which the Boston case, he just shut up after that, so too late. Yeah, exactly, the feds had gotten all they wanted out of him, and we're like, sure, whatever, And apparently a judge ordered the FEDS to mirandize the guy after like two days of this quiet questioning. I bet that was a pretty satisfying reading of the rights at that point. I'm sure, you know,

because they knew they were covered. But I mean, this is such a gestapo tactic too, Like we'll this question you about everything we want for two days until the judge ordered us to mirandi is that means that some attorneys are gonna have to go through all two days of that confession to pick out what at what point the public safety exemption was basically exhausted. And I mean, you can argue that any question that has to do with possible future terrorist attacks is you know, preventing or

protecting public safety. Yeah, but it's just like, uh, I mean, I don't know, it definitely skirts the spirit of the law. I would think, Yeah, And I found an article written by the guy who originally I think wrote the Quarrels verdict, and he he was like, you know what, in the case with the Boston bomber, you they shouldn't even done

that anyway, because it was so much evidence. They didn't even need these confessions, and it wasn't the true spirit of trying to secure public safety to find if there was other explosives. But from that point on they were like it was completely unnecessary because the guy was convicted just from you know, the evidence was so strong that

they didn't even need that confession exactly. So like after they found out about the bombs or whatever, whether their word weren't bombs, then it seems to me like the public safety exemption would have been exhausted and they would have had to have mirandized him. It's a slippery slope. But I mean, it's not like the CIA has to have, you know, admissible evidence in court to go after all the people that um Joe kar named, if he named anybody or whatever he gave up, you know. So it's

just I don't know. Yeah, I'm coming to trust like Obama's security policies like less and less. That's my opinion. No, I get it. It's it's a it's a very fine line between like, hey, this guy's a terrorist and get that information or people still have their human rights right exactly. And it's such a difficult thing to to swallow to the concept that some little punk who him and his brother blew people up in Boston and took people's lives and legs and that they did this, that the concept

that they have any rights whatsoever is pretty unpalatable. But we as a society have decided that, yeah, you do have rights. If you're an American system, you have certain rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and and court interpretation of those rights. And that's the law of the land, and um, I guess to just routinely skirt around those whenever, whenever it's determined to be called for by whoever is in charge and power.

That's that's equally impalatable. Impalatable to me because also, um, you know, the courts judged a criminal suspect when you invoke the public safety option, it's not that that person doesn't have any rights, it's that the safety of the public trump set person's constitutional rights right then, but just for that narrow window of time, and then after that it's exhausted. That's right. And this is not the first time. It was just three years ago that the FEDS did

the same thing. They invoked the public safety exemption for the Times Square bomber. Yeah, and he sang like a canary, which is if they just did it to Joe Carson Naiev, I don't think I would have a problem. But just the fact that it popped up three years ago too, that's starting an indicate a pattern to me. Yeah, terrorism, I think is the key. Yeah, key agent there you know, anything else, I'm done, then we're gonna get so much mail for that one. Hey, buddy, you have the right

to remain fabulous thank you. That's my takeaway. Thank you. If you want to learn more about being fabulous, you can type that word into the search bart how stuff works dot com. You can also type Miranda Rights m I R A N D A Rights. Uh. And since I said search bars somewhere in there, it's time for message, and now it's time for listening to mail. Yeah. Before listener mail, we have a quick shout out. And we don't usually do this because we get inundated with requests

for shoutouts. Yeah, so every once in a a while they at the right time exactly. This is an anniversary shout out from Josh Underwood. Uh. He and his wife are teachers in uh Robertson County, Kentucky, and they've listen to our show incorporated in their classrooms and they are celebrating

their tenure anniversary. And uh, he said, if we could say happy anniversary to Amanda, it would can't think of anything that would make her smile more so on June fourteenth, and he said, if it's late, and you know, don't worry about it. So this is probably gonna be late, but I hope you guys had a great anniversary. On June fourteen, Happy tenth Josh and Amanda Underwood. Yeah, happy anniversary you guys. Or I don't know if I'm and it took your name whatever her name might be. Yeah,

so the real listener male speaking of taking names. Uh, it's a good one and I'm gonna call it Royal Tannon Bombs. Uh theory. Oh I like this already. Yeah, it's one of my favorite movies, Losing a finger, you know, boy chopping actor. Hi, guys, my wife Molly and I've been listening for about three years. We both love it. Um. I've always wanted to email you, but I didn't have a reason, and I didn't want to sound like a twelve year old girl talking to in sync or something.

Those guys pretty out of touch. Yeah, I guess it's nineteen four. I wanted to say something interesting. So here are two interesting things. One, my name is Josh Bryant. Pretty interesting. It's like the two of us together, right. I appreciate you taking my name. Uh. Number two he actually had three things, but one wasn't so interesting. Uh. Number two is I watched Wes Anderson Toroyal Tannonbombs was amazing, how different and unique all the characters were and how

well they all worked together as a family. After reading other theories about the movie, I think the one I love most is that every character represents a different stage of grief. So Denial I collect fan theories. Oh I love it. That is a great one. Have you seen Room two thirty seven? Yet no of you know I'm dying to them. They didn't release it in Atlanta. Um alright.

So Denial is Margot Tannembaum, her unknown smoking habit, numerous marriages, secret crush on Richie, totally denial, anger, Chaz Tannebaum, need I say more? Pretty much throughout the whole movie, he's angry and full of resentment, bargaining royal Tannebaum himself. He lies to get out of bad gambles and gambles to cover up bad lies. This is like pretty good and he didn't make this up. He got off then after that's still good. But Joshua Bryant, you getting no credit.

It's like that kid who stole that high ku from a T shirt and um depression. Richie Tannebomb again very obvious, sees when he tries to see when he tries to commit suicide. Great scene, uh An acceptance is ethylene Tannenbaum. Her is more subtle. Her acceptance is seen when she accepts Mr. Sherman's marriage proposal. It's a little thing there. It's also seen when she finally moves on from her own marriage and accepts her new life with her new husband.

So that's sort of that's the most tenuous. But that's what we think, and I think that's pretty good. I love fan theories, like you, Yeah, five stages of greed. I doubt if that's the case. Well, that's what makes fan theories so great. If like, if you just unlocked the director's secret, sure, then it's done. It's fine. Not you figured it out. One of the great things about fan theories is that it rivals what the director was trying to do or the writer was trying to do. Yeah,

it was like English class. Remember back in English class, it was always and I had a problem with it back then, but now I love it. I would always be like, well, just teachers just interpreting this, like who knows what the author meant? Oh yeah, but that's kind of the point. Now in my old age, I realized, Yeah, I remember feeling my brain unfurl and start to get like, yeah, there are ccific interpretations of things and that that that kind of fit within a framework, but still are it's

pretty wide. Yeah, but great, it's nice, pretty cool fan theories. I'm writing a blog post on him right now. I'm collecting him. Oh yeah, so that's from Joshua Bryant. Joshua, I guess is a result of some weird stuff you should know in breeding. But yeah, he's an experiment, that's right. Yeah, Dish, let us know where you are right now. He escape Yeah, uh, if you escape from our lab, we want to hear about it, especially if you have some cool fan theory. Man,

send us fan theories, like good ones. I mean like good ones, not like uh it's stupid ones. Yeah. I've been on feral children lately. What just that's been my obsession lately, reading about feral children. I might trying to write a think virtue fan theory. Feral children. What does that have to do with fan theories? Nothing, That's just that's my obsession. Yours has been fan theories. Oh, I

got you, I got I've just been obsessed with feral children. Yeah, because there have been like actual ones in there, yeah, like um, the Emerald Forest, the many cases. So Okay. If you have a good fan theory and or a good barrel children's story, we want to hear about it. You can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.

You can join us on Stuff you Should Know, which is prior to that slash, prior to that Facebook dot com uh, you can send us an email the Stuff podcast, that Discovery dot com, and you can join us at our home on the web Stuff you Should Know dot com for more on this and thousands of other topics. Does it House stuff works dot com. Jack thards has

quickly become the online shopping destination for guys. Here's why everything on the site is up off as a listener of Stuff you Should Know, you can skip the membership waitlist and get instant access at jack threads dot com, slash k and o W stuff That's Jack threads dot com, slash no Stuff