Also known as: police interrogation · police-interrogation · custodial interrogation · Miranda 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 that triggers Fifth Amendment protections against compelled self-incrimination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paige Porter told officers she wanted a lawyer during questioning at the station about a theft. The next morning a detective from another unit summoned her to an interview room and asked about an unrelated assault. The court suppressed the new statements because the detective restarted custodial questioning without counsel present after the earlier invocation.
Portia Price was pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer escorted her to a ranger station room and questioned her for thirty minutes about suspected dumping. The court held the session amounted to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings even though the initial stop involved only a minor traffic matter.
Peter Park requested counsel during initial police questioning at his workplace. He met briefly with an attorney that evening. The following day a detective brought him to an interview room without counsel and resumed questioning about the same events. The court suppressed the statements because counsel's presence was required at any later custodial session unless Park himself reinitiated contact.
Piper Patel sat in a locked interview room at the precinct while detectives asked pointed questions about a fraud scheme. No warnings were given before the session began. The court ruled her responses inadmissible because the questioning occurred during custodial interrogation without the required advisements of rights.
Parker Phillips answered a series of detailed questions from detectives at the station about events surrounding a completed assault. The recorded responses were later offered at trial through an officer's testimony. The court treated the statements as testimonial because the primary purpose of the exchange was to establish facts for prosecution rather than to address an ongoing emergency.
Pavel Petrov spoke to responding officers at the scene moments after a violent incident while the assailant remained at large. His answers described the attack and identified the perpetrator. The court admitted the statements because the primary purpose of the questioning was to resolve an ongoing emergency rather than to document past events for trial.
Custody exists when a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter and leave. Ordinary roadside traffic stops are typically noncustodial because they are brief and less coercive than stationhouse questioning. Moving a driver to a separate room for sustained accusatory questioning converts the encounter into custodial interrogation that triggers the warnings requirement.
Supporting sources
Once a suspect clearly invokes the Miranda right to counsel, officers may not restart custodial interrogation about any offense unless the suspect reinitiates contact or counsel is present. Prior consultation with an attorney does not lift the prohibition. Any statements obtained through police reinitiation are suppressed.
…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…
…applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. The statements in the present case are testimonial. The wife’s recorded statement, knowingly given in response to structured
…for Petitioner in Brookhart v. Janis , O. T. 1965, No. 657, pp. 10-11); Bruton v. United States , 391 U. S. 123, 124 (1968) (custodial interrogation); Roberts v. Russell , 392 U. S. 293 (1968) ( per curiam ) (
…materials,” such as depositions, affidavits, and prior testimony, or statements resulting from “formalized dialogue,” such as custodial interrogation. Bryant , supra , at . Applying these principles, Cellmark’s report is not a statement by a “witnes[s]” under the Confrontation Clause. It lacks the solemnity of an affidavit or…
…the product of a free and deliberate choice . . . ."[^maj-5] Because respondent's waiver was not voluntary in that sense, his custodial interrogation
Supporting sources
Statements are testimonial when the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish facts of a past crime for later prosecution. Statements made to resolve an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial and may be admitted without cross-examination of the declarant.
Supporting sources
The Miranda right to counsel applies only during custodial interrogation. Noncustodial encounters, such as routine traffic stops or voluntary stationhouse interviews where the suspect remains free to leave, do not trigger the right or the requirement of warnings.
Supporting sources
An ambiguous or equivocal statement such as "maybe I should have a lawyer" does not invoke the Miranda right to counsel. Officers may continue questioning unless the suspect makes an unambiguous request that a reasonable officer would understand as invoking the right.
Supporting sources