MIRANDA Safeguards must be observed:1.At the onset, if a person in custody subjected to interrogation, he must first beinformed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.2.The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.3.An individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.4.If an individual indicates his wishes for counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that he does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney. 5.Warming him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed. 6.Once warnings have been given, if the individual wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.7.If interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney, the governmenthas a heavy burden to demonstrate defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination. 8.Privilege is not waived if the individual answers some questions on his own prior to invoking his right to remain silent. 9.The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner.
Custodial interrogation: questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.1.there been custodial interrogation by a state actor?a.Custody?i.Beckwith: Not in Custody. Petitioner was questioned in his home by IRS Agents. He was the focus of a criminal investigation. Miranda defines “focus” as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. ii.Orozco: Custody. Defendant was questioned in his bedroom at 4am by four police officers. The circumstances produced a potential for compulsion equivalent to police station interrogation. iii.Murphy: Probationer arranged to meet with his probation officer in her office. When he met with her, he admitted to rap and murder a number of years ago. Court concluded that Murphy could not claim the “in custody” exception to the general rule that the privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing. Custodial arrest is said to convey to the suspect a message thathe has no choice but to submit to the officers’ will and to confess. Murphy was not physically restrained and could have left the office, any compulsion he might have felt from the possibility that terminating the meeting would have led to revocation of probation was not comparable to the pressure on