SYSK Selects: How Miranda Rights Work

stuff you should know. Jerry just told us right before she pressed record, don't forget to be clever. What is that about? I don't know, man, I pressure I'm a little to own off right now. Well, I think maybe because you said Miranda rights sort of named after the Sex in the City character. Is that what you're talking about? That 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 fairly 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 tom foolery. There you go, Chuck. Yes,

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. Not 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, it's still on, it's on, right. I have no idea that I'm like season seven. I

have no idea. I don't think it is. 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 court 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, Yeah, you know the goes like short and sweet. 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 just cast so he he does. I've never seen it. I love Nathan Fillon though, Oh who doesn't. Yeah, he's a nice guy. But 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 evident when you think about it. Yeah, and it seems really straightforward, but it can't get 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 v. 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 them there were confessions after interrogations, um,

and those confessions were used against these various people. Right. But we're with 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. You're miranda ized, 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 are

convicted for him. We're not aware that they didn't have to talk to the police. Right, And this is actually the Miranda case goes back to nineteen sixty six. But the American right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the constitution Fifth Amendment to to refrain from self incrimination. That goes back to, like 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 is. 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 nineteen sixty three. Uh in Phoenix, Arizona, UM, the cops picked up Ernesto Miranda for questioning and a kidnapping and rate case. His car

was spotted near of 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. It'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 identified 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 there their tails off to you, right, 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 course, 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 informed 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 ninety six, like we said, the Supreme Court heard this case and ruled he was convicted we should say, right based on that confession and sentenced to thirty years I believe, and that the Supreme Court case was part of an appeal that's right 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. Yeah, yeah, um, And they said in a five to four decision, you know what the the suspect has to be read his rights, which one now'll cause miranda rights. Yeah, and they specifically said, um, prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it did 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 those 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 the 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 he confessed to me, so that was used in court. So he was found guilty again since the twenty 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 the nine Yes, and the suspect who stabbed him was read his Miranda rights and so he never talked

and he walked. Really, oh my god, the irony. It's definitely irony. Wow, And like the 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, right, 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. 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 mirrored sunglasses, that they have some sort of um, they project a sort of 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 if 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 going to go to the grocery store right now, right exactly, and just walk past them 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 Miranda'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 and 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 trap fix 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 mean you can just drive off because then you know, 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 courts of That means you're fleeing. That means you're evading, evading what arrests a 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 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 at. I'm just genuinely, like, I'm genuinely curious. If you can't drive off, then how is it a non constidious situation? That's my question. Yeah,

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. Yeah. 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. Right, 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 able. Yeah, man, we are criminal minds right here. I'm sure there's workarounds for all this. You're like Mandy Patinken and like the rest of the cast right here at this table and Entel. No, it is any in Criminal Minds. I don't know. He's in the Homeland. I watch that. He's also in the

Prince's Pride. He's in Nego Montoya Monday thinkin. He was also the alien cop in Alien Nation. A lot of people don't know that. 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. Yeah, it was cruel. Did you see that one? 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 at Jr. In an alien suit and Dennis Quaid, right, Uh, Randy quick, Dennis Quaid. It definitely wasn't Randy. It wasn't like banking Dennis Quaid. I'm pretty sure. All right, So Miranda rights here is 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 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 jos 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 caught 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 with out 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 to 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 frist them 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 Win 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 were like sure, whatever, And apparently a judge ordered the FEDS to mirandize the guy after like two days of

this 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, well, this question you about everything we want for two days until the judge ordered us to mirandize. That means that some attorneys are going to 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 there was so much evidence they didn't even need these confessions, and it was in the true spirit of trying to secure public safety to find

if there was other explosives. But from that point on, they're 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 real. 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 exemption. It's not that that person doesn't have any rights, it's that the safety of the public trumps that 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, Naieve, 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 indicative 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 bar 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 bar somewhere in there, it's time for message ye, 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 while,

because at the right time exactly. This is an anniversary shout out from Josh Underwood. Uh. He and his wife are teachers in h Robertson County, Kentucky, and they've listened 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 I can't think of anything that would make her smile more so. On June fourteenth, he said, if it's late, you know,

do'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 improtrate you guys. Or I don't know if Amanda took your name whatever her name might be. Yeah, so the real listener mail speaking of taking names. Uh, it's a good one and I'm gonna call it Royal tann ebombs. Uh theory. Oh I like this already. Yeah, it's one of my favorite movies. As it's losing finger you know,

a boy chopping accent? Right, 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 that's 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. It's right.

I appreciate you taking my name. Uh. Number two he actually had three things, but one wasn't so interesting. Number two is I watched Wes Anderson's Royal Tannebombs. Was amazing at 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 demoral anger, Chaz tannebaumb need I say more. Pretty much throughout the whole movie, he's angry and full of resentment, bargaining Royal Tannembaum 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 the internet. But that's still good still. But Joshua Brant, you get no credit. It's like that kid who stole that haiku from a T shirt and um depression. Richie Tannebaum again very obvious. Sees when he tries to see when he tries to commit suicide. Great scene. Uh and except Upstince is Ethylene Tannenbaum. Her role is more subtle. Her acceptance is seen when she accepts Mr. Sherman's marriage proposal. It's

a little thin 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 he that's what we think, and I think that's pretty good. I love fan theories like you. Yeah, five stages of gree 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 whine not you figured it out. One of the great things about fan theories is if 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 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. Yeah, and start to get like, yeah, there are specific interpretations of things 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, tree dish, let us know where you are right now. He escaped. 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. Yeah, 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 try and write a think for a show 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 the like um, the Emerald Forest, the many cases. So okay, if you have a good fan theory and or a good feral children's story, we want to hear

about it. You can tweek 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, visit how Stuff Works. Dot com