Voluntary statement

Voluntary statement

 Voluntary Statement and a Custodial Interrogation

Name

Class

Date

Professor

Voluntary Statement and a Custodial Interrogation

In order for police to develop information on a crime they will need to conduct interviews with witnesses of the crimes and potential suspects. Police officers conducting the interviews with criminal suspects must tread carefully to avoid violating their due process rights but interviews with witnesses do not have the same due process protections. When police interview suspects, while in custody, they must first warn them of their right to remain silent and right to have an attorney present during any questioning. The voluntary statement is given to police freely by the suspect.

Statements given by suspects can become pivotal to the court case. Because criminal suspects have due process rights how these statements are collected becomes vey important in the criminal investigation and the court process. The voluntary statement is just that, voluntary but that does not always mean it will be used in the criminal investigation. When statements are collected illegally they will be excluded from the court process. When statements are collected legally they become important and valuable pieces of evidence that can be used against the criminal suspect in the court of law.

Prior to the 1960’s police would force, coerce, or illegally collect statements and confessions from suspects during questioning despite the Fourth Amendment protection rights of the citizen. As a result many people went to jail on illegal evidence. In order to resolve this problem the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona that police could no longer collect statements from suspects without first warning them of their due process right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during any questioning (Klein, 2001). These rights are afforded in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The case of Miranda vs. Arizona involved criminal suspect being charged and convicted of rape after police illegally obtained his confession. Police were obligated due to a previous ruling in Escobedo vs. Illinois to warn criminal suspects of their right to an attorney before any questioning (Klein, 2001). Police failed to warn suspect Miranda of this right and when the case went in front of the Supreme Court the court further ruled police must also warn suspects of their right to remain silent. As a result the Miranda Warning developed which I a requirement for police to warn a suspect of their rights while being questioned. Failure to warn the suspect can result in the statement being thrown out of court.

Now the voluntary statement is a little trickier than the custodial statement. Even if a statement is given voluntarily by the suspect it will not always be considered legally obtained. In order for a voluntary statement to be legal it must be given freely without any coercion by police. If a statement is given spontaneously without any questioning by police once a suspect has been taken into custody that statement is considered legal. In the case of Tuttle vs. People the court ruled a statement, to be voluntary, must proceed from the spontaneous suggestion of a party's own mind, free from the influence of any extraneous, disturbing cause (Kluwer, 2010).

A voluntary statement can become a custodial interrogation if police follow up the statement with questions without first giving the suspect their Miranda Warning. When police arrest suspects for a crime they immediately give the Miranda Warning in the event they make a statement. When this does not happen and a voluntary statement is made the police officer must follow up this voluntary statement with a Miranda Warning to protect any further admissions made by the criminal suspect. For example if a suspect runs up to a police officer and says “I shot the intruder when he broke into my house”. This statement is voluntary because it was spontaneous.

The custodial interrogation is different from questioning a suspect that is not in police custody. In other words a police officer can suspect a person is responsible for a crime and question them. The Miranda Warning is not required until the suspect is being placed in the custody of police whether by arresting the suspect or by questioning the suspect at police headquarters in a interrogation room. If the criminal suspect believes they are in the custody of police they must be given a Miranda Warning. When criminal suspects are not warned by police of their rights it can result in the evidence being excluded based on the Exclusionary Rule.

The Exclusionary Rule is the result of a ruling in the case of Weeks vs. United States where the Supreme Court found any confession or evidence obtained illegally by police would be excluded as evidence in the court process (Kluwer, 2010). After the ruling in Miranda the Exclusionary Rule was applied to the custodial interrogation and the voluntary stamen ruled illegal. Later in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States the court also rules any evidence obtained from the illegal interrogation will also be subject to the Exclusionary Rule based on the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine.

The custodial interrogation and the voluntary statement are both statements provided to police by suspects. Both statements are constitutionally protected but the voluntary statements will only be excluded by the court process if obtained illegally. Custodial interrogations cannot be conducted without a Miranda Warning first being given to the suspect while voluntary statements can be freely given and used against the suspect in a court of law. The statements given by suspects can be essential to the court case so it is important that police are careful to give the appropriate warnings to protect this evidence.

References

Klein, S. (2001). "Miranda's Exceptions in a Post-Dickerson World." Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology 2(1): 567–96

Kluwer, W. (2010). The Exclusionary rule. Retrieved July 14, 2014 from

https://www.inkling.com/read/wolters-kluwer-mbe-bar-prep/mbe-criminal-law-and-procedure/

Applied Sciences

Architecture and Design

Biology

Business & Finance

Chemistry

Computer Science

Geography

Geology

Education

Engineering

English

Environmental science

Spanish

Government

History

Human Resource Management

Information Systems

Law

Literature

Mathematics

Nursing

Physics

Political Science

Psychology

Reading

Science

Social Science

Home

Blog

Archive

Contact

google+twitterfacebook

Copyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com