Also known as: interrogation requirement · interrogation · custodial interrogation requirement · Miranda interrogation · custodial interrogation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A prerequisite for Miranda warnings that subjects a suspect in custody to questioning or its functional equivalent likely to elicit an incriminating response. Statements obtained without prior warnings during such interrogation are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. The requirement excludes routine booking questions and physical manifestations during sobriety tests.
Ranger Lopez stopped Ivy Ibarra at a park entrance for rolling through a yield sign. Lopez escorted Ibarra into a small room at the ranger station and questioned her intensively for thirty minutes about suspected illegal dumping. Ibarra made incriminating statements without receiving Miranda warnings. The court suppressed the statements because the prolonged stationhouse questioning amounted to custodial interrogation requiring warnings.
After arrest Idris Ives made an oral statement to a known federal agent in response to questioning about wire fraud. The government intended to introduce the statement at trial. Upon Ives's request under Rule 16 the prosecutor disclosed the substance of that statement to the defense. The disclosure satisfied the rule because the statement resulted from interrogation by a person Ives knew was a government agent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ike Ingram was in custody when he clearly told officers he wanted counsel before answering questions about stolen exam answers. Officers immediately stopped the interrogation. A different detective later reinitiated questioning about the same matter without providing counsel. The second statement was suppressed because police may not resume interrogation after a clear invocation until counsel is present or the suspect reinitiates.
Isabelle Inman invoked her Miranda right to counsel during questioning about mortgage fraud. She briefly consulted with outside counsel that evening. The next morning a detective returned alone and questioned her in jail about insurance claims without counsel present. The court suppressed the new statements because the right to counsel requires the attorney's presence at any subsequent custodial interrogation unless the suspect reinitiates.
Ingrid Innes was arrested and placed in a locked interview room. Officers questioned her at length about vehicle identification numbers without first advising her of the right to remain silent or to have counsel. Innes made incriminating statements that the prosecution sought to introduce. The statements were inadmissible because any statement obtained during custodial interrogation requires prior Miranda warnings and a valid waiver.
Ines Ibarra was detained overnight in a small office while agents awaited lab results on contaminated meat. Agents repeatedly warned her that refusal to cooperate could affect her visa and degree status. After five hours of questioning Ines confessed. The confession was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances because her youth inexperience and the prolonged coercive setting overbore her will.
Routine booking questions seeking biographical data and certain physical manifestations such as slurred speech during sobriety processing are not interrogation. Statements obtained through those questions remain admissible even without warnings.
Once a suspect in custody clearly invokes the right to counsel police must stop interrogation and may not reinitiate questioning about any offense until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further communication and waives the right.
Routine traffic stops are ordinarily noncustodial because they are temporary and brief. Miranda warnings are therefore not required during ordinary roadside questioning even though the driver is not free to leave.
Upon a defendant's request the government must disclose the substance of any relevant oral statement made by the defendant before or after arrest in response to interrogation by a person the defendant knew was a government agent if the government intends to use the statement at trial.
…follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning…