The police have a witness who is victimized through armed robbery. Liam has identified the suspects and the police should be tasked of searching for the gun used in the robbery. The police should also try all they can to retrieve the stolen items from the two suspects. Miranda rights are established to protect the defendants from unnecessary confessions (Kent 1966). The unnecessary confessions from an interview in custody sometimes can be overturned by the Supreme Court. The police detectives should hence proceed with caution.
The two suspects are not guilty until proven guilty by the court of law, and the justifications from Liam concerning the two Caucasian robbers may not be enough to prosecute the two suspects. Suspect 1 refused to speak, and this is a clear sign of invoking his Miranda rights. At this situation, the police detectives will consider looking for a lawyer for the suspect. Suspect 2 proceeded to answer the questions from the police. According to Miranda rights, the police should be careful of the original statements used by the suspect. The original statement from the suspect “I am not sure I should talk to you” coherently indicates that his statements may not be used during the trial (Kent 1966). During the trial, the jury will try and examine if the suspects were read their Miranda rights before questioning. The court will also investigate if suspect two was compelled to incriminate themselves. The prosecution is also likely to throw away the statements from suspect two since the original statement used is not justifying his willingness to speak to the police detectives. Since the defendants were warned before their questioning that they have the right to remain silent, the statements can be used by the court of law during prosecution. Police detectives are authorized to interrogate the defendants, but the process should observe the measures provided concerning the Miranda rights of the defendant.
The statement “I am not sure if I want to talk anymore” is enough to invoke the Miranda rights of suspect 2. The fact that the suspect is not sure indicates that any statement from him might be incriminating or otherwise the suspect is under pressure. The police should once again read the Miranda rights for the suspect and ask him to rephrase the statement. The police should ask the suspect to agree to talk willingly, or they call for him an attorney. If the suspect refuses to rephrase the statement, the police should not consider it for interrogation. The interrogation will be bound to stop, and a lawyer acquired for the suspect (Kent 1966). The police detective should ensure that the environment for interrogation is free from pressure. The police should also consider explaining further to the suspect the meaning of the statement in the Miranda rights to avoid misunderstanding.
Scenario Part 2 – The Missing Child
Sam is a person of interest for investigation whose description matches the one provided by one of the neighbours. It is not proved that Sam visited the neighbourhood, but through interrogation, the police detective can obtain some information to assist in investigating the case of the missing child. Since Sam is a person of interest to interrogate concerning the investigation of the missing child, it is not necessary to provide a Miranda warning (Thomas III, & Leo, 2002). A police detective is allowed by the law to detain Sam for the sake of asking for his identification. Since Sam is located in the streets, the police can question him without providing Miranda rights. If Sam fails to speak to the police, the police will have to take him to custody for questioning. In custody, the police detective must read the Miranda rights before the interrogation begins. Therefore, if the police have a person of interest to interrogate, it is not necessary to read the Miranda warnings, especially when outside the custody. Within custody, a person of interest must be issued with Miranda warnings before questioning.
Miranda warnings are often required after arresting a person of interest during an investigation. In custody, the police must provide the Miranda warnings to the suspect. At the streets, the police are not bound to provide the Miranda warnings (Thomas III, & Leo, 2002). It implies that if the person of interest decides to speak then, the police can use the statements to incriminate the person. In custody and before interrogation, the police must read the Miranda warnings otherwise the statements from the suspect may be considered inadmissible.
Suspects must invoke their Miranda rights to remain silent or the right to an attorney and be careful not waive their Miranda rights. There are certain circumstances when a waiver of Miranda rights is valid. Suspects can waive their Miranda rights either implicitly or expressly (Thomas III, & Leo, 2002). Expressly a suspect can waive their Miranda rights through signing a document stating that they have waived their Miranda rights. In such a case, the suspect cannot remain silent and cannot also demand an attorney to be present during questioning. An implied waiver is also possible when a suspect behaves in a way indicating a voluntary waiver or an understanding of Miranda rights.
Miranda provide certain warnings and rights to a suspect before interrogation. The defendant has the right to remain silent since anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. Miranda also provides the right to consult with an attorney, and the attorney must be present during interrogation (Thomas III, & Leo, 2002). A situation where a suspect cannot afford a lawyer, it is mandatory for one to be appointed to represent the suspect. A suspect has the right to invoke the right to be silent before or during questioning, and the interrogation is bound to stop. Finally, Miranda also provides the suspect with the opportunity to invoke a right to have an attorney, and until the attorney is present, the questioning must stop.