Miranda Warnings

A federal judge in Miami, Florida, has ruled that the Miranda rights warning used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the Constitutional rights of four defendants charged with drug smuggling. Curt Anderson, Judge in Miami Rejects Miranda Warning Used by Homeland Security, Associated Press, Aug. 5, 2005, also available at the Seattle Times.

The forms, which the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch of the DHS says were different than the forms approved for ICE agents’ use elsewhere in the nation, stated “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions” and “If you decide to answer questions without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.” Paula McMahon et al., Feds Make Miranda Blunder in Port Everglades Smuggling Case, South Florida Sun-Sentinal, Aug. 6, 2005, available here.

Because the form did not state that the defendants had a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation, United States Magistrate Judge Lurana Snow ruled that the warnings were unconstitutional. Id.

Miranda refers, of course, to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in which the Supreme Court held that certain warnings had to be administered before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. Miranda at 479. Following Miranda, the United States Congress attempted to temper Miranda by passing 18 U.S.C. § 3501. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432 (2000). Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated in Dickerson that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of the Court, may not be negated by an Act of Congress. Id. at 431. It reiterated that

the admissibility in evidence of any statement given during custodial interrogation of a suspect would depend on whether the police provided the suspect with four warnings[:]… a suspect “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.” Id. at 435 (quoting Miranda at 479).

However, since Dickerson, the Court has determined that “a mere failure to give Miranda warnings does not, by itself violate a suspect’s constitutional rights or even the Miranda rule.” United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630,__, 124 S. Ct. 2620, 2628 (2004). “[P]olice do not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights…by negligent or even deliberate failures to provide the suspect with the full panoply of warnings prescribed by Miranda.” Id. at 2629. A violation only occurs if unwarned statements are admitted into evidence at trial, and the remedy at that point is the exclusion of those statements. Id. (citing Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 790 (2003)).

In any case, according to the Sun-Sentinel, ICE has taken steps to ensure that the forms that are used contain the appropriate warning in both English and Spanish.