Also known as: express questioning · functional equivalent of express questioning · interrogation · Miranda interrogation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Words or actions by police officers, other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, that officers should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect in custody.
Emanuel Escobar was pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer asked routine questions about his destination and whether he had been drinking. Escobar admitted to having a beer earlier. Because the stop was brief and noncustodial, the exchange did not amount to express questioning or its functional equivalent requiring warnings.
Ella Emerson was arrested and questioned by agents she knew were federal officers. She made an oral admission about falsifying records. Upon her request the government disclosed the substance of that statement under the discovery rule because it was made in response to interrogation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Esme Ellington invoked her right to counsel during custodial questioning. Officers stopped, but later returned and resumed asking about the same offense without providing counsel. The continued exchange constituted express questioning or its functional equivalent that violated the invocation rule.
Edith Eberhardt had consulted with counsel after invoking her Miranda right. A detective later reinitiated questioning in custody without counsel present and obtained further statements. The detective's direct questions were express questioning or its functional equivalent barred by the invocation.
Elijah Edwards was taken into custody and questioned at length about a theft without receiving any warnings. His detailed confession followed direct questions about his whereabouts. The statements resulted from express questioning or its functional equivalent and were inadmissible.
Erika Echevarria was held for hours in a small room and questioned about a fraud scheme. Officers used her youth and inexperience to press for details. The prolonged direct questioning amounted to express questioning or its functional equivalent.
Any words or actions by officers other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect in custody trigger Miranda protections.
The Miranda functional-equivalent test focuses on whether officers should know their words or actions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Sixth Amendment test examines whether officers deliberately elicited statements after the right to counsel has attached.
Routine booking questions seeking biographical data are not interrogation for Miranda purposes and therefore fall outside the definition of express questioning or its functional equivalent.
…More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. We…