Did you make statements to police pursuant to a valid Miranda waiver?  In order to trigger the protections afforded pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, the defendant must be subject to custodial interrogation.[1]  Custodial interrogation is “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.”[2]  The determination of custody depends primarily on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, and not on the subjective views of either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. The critical question in making such determination is “whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have believed that he was in custody.”[3]  Thus, the focus is not on the police officer’s intent, but on the suspect’s perception and whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would feel free to leave. [4]

The applicability of Miranda to a particular case must be determined after an objective review of all the circumstances, with consideration given to such factors as the nature of the crime, the place where the questioning takes place,[5] the status of the investigation at the time of the questioning, the conduct of the police toward the defendant, the defendant’s reasonable belief as to his freedom of action[6] and the ability of the defendant voluntarily to leave the place of questioning. [7]

Miranda warnings are only necessary where one is the subject of “custody and official interrogation.”[8]  “For purposes of Miranda, ‘interrogation’ means not only express questioning of a suspect but also its ‘functional equivalent.'”[9]  The term “functional equivalent” includes “any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”[10]  “An ‘incriminating response’ includes any response, inculpatory or exculpatory, which the prosecution might seek to use against the suspect at trial.”[11]  “The ‘functional equivalence’ test does not turn on the subjective intent of the particular police officer but on an objective assessment as to whether the police statements and conduct would be perceived as interrogation by a reasonable person in the same circumstances.”[12]

If Miranda is implicated and the defendant has been duly advised, the question focuses on whether a subsequent statement was pursuant to a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of those rights.  The Commonwealth’s burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prophylactic warnings were given, that they were understood and that the Constitutional rights were validly waived.[13]  The Court will consider multiple factors in determining whether a valid Miranda waiver exists.[14]  Those factors include, but are not limited to: the defendant’s conduct; the defendant’s age, education, intelligence, and emotional stability; the defendant’s experience with and in the criminal justice system; the defendant’s physical and mental condition.[15]  The Court must examine the totality of the circumstances leading up to the waiver, including the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.[16]

If you are facing criminal charges and made statements?  Are you concerned there was not a valid Miranda waiver?  Contact criminal Attorney Kristen F. Bonavita at 978-376-6746 to determine whether you can challenge your statements and effectuate a suppression of those statements.