Also known as: police interrogations · custodial interrogation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Questioning of a suspect by law enforcement officers while the suspect is in custody for the purpose of eliciting incriminating statements. The process triggers Fifth Amendment protections when it occurs in a coercive setting that restricts the suspect's freedom.
Peter Park was arrested for theft and invoked his right to counsel during initial questioning. An hour later a different detective entered the holding cell, gave fresh warnings, and asked about an unrelated fraud scheme. Park provided statements that the prosecutor later offered at trial. The court suppressed the statements because officers reinitiated custodial questioning without counsel present after the invocation.
Patrick Phan was pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer asked routine questions about the vehicle registration and destination while Phan remained in the driver's seat. No warnings were given and the stop lasted only minutes. The court admitted Phan's answers because the brief roadside encounter did not constitute custodial interrogation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Parker Phillips requested counsel during stationhouse questioning about a robbery. After consulting briefly with an attorney he remained in custody overnight. The next morning a detective returned without counsel and resumed questioning about the same incident. The court excluded the new statements because counsel was not present during the subsequent interrogation.
Penelope Price was arrested and taken to an interrogation room. Officers questioned her for two hours about a burglary without providing any warnings. Price made incriminating admissions that the prosecutor sought to introduce. The court suppressed the statements because no warnings were given before custodial interrogation began.
Perry Pratt was interviewed at the police station about a shooting. Officers asked targeted questions in a formal setting and recorded his responses. The statements were later offered against him at trial. The court treated the exchange as producing testimonial statements subject to confrontation requirements.
Priya Prasad walked into the station and confessed to a crime without any prompting. Officers had not placed her in custody or begun questioning. The court admitted the statements because the encounter lacked the coercive elements of custodial interrogation.
Once a suspect in custody clearly invokes the Miranda right to counsel, officers may not reinitiate interrogation about any offense while the suspect remains in custody unless counsel is present or the suspect reinitiates contact. The protection applies across all law enforcement officers and all crimes.
Supporting sources
Routine traffic stops are ordinarily noncustodial because they are temporary and brief. Miranda warnings are not required during ordinary roadside questioning even though the stop involves some restraint on movement.
Supporting sources
Law enforcement must provide the required warnings and obtain a valid waiver. Any statement obtained without those warnings during custodial interrogation is inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
Supporting sources
No. Once the right to counsel is invoked, police may not reinitiate custodial interrogation without counsel present even if the suspect has already consulted an attorney. The protection continues until the suspect reinitiates or counsel is actually provided during questioning.
Supporting sources
…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…