Your Miranda Warnings: New Law Claims; Old Law Ways
Everyone knows that Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 changed everything when it came to police interrogations. Or did it? The Miranda decision specifically referred to police using tactics that included violence and the “third degree.” The U.S. Supreme Court noted that it had recently decided cases where police had resorted to physical brutality – literally beating, hanging, and whipping suspects in order to extort confessions.
But the largest national police agency in the country, the FBI, was not handling suspect interrogations in this way pre-Miranda, at least not on the record. In fact, in a recently-uncovered memorandum, J. Edgar Hoover described how interviews with suspects were to be conducted. Compare the standard warnings given by the FBI, with the rules set forth by the Miranda decision. Now, as to whether the FBI played by their own rules, that’s quite another matter.
FBI Standard Warnings
As soon as practicable after arrest, or
Before any interview with a person for a confession or admission of guilt, whichever comes first
The suspect will be advised:
You have a right to say nothing
You have a right to counsel of your choice or anyone else with whom you might wish to speak
If you are unable to pay for an attorney, a judge will assign you one free of charge
Any statement you make may be used against you in court
If the suspect asks for counsel, the interview is concluded.
NOW COMPARE MIRANDA
Miranda Decision Requirements
Prior to questioning (custodial interrogation)
The suspect must be warned:
You have the right to remain silent
You have the right to the presence of an attorney
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to questioning if you so desire
Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law
If the suspect states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present
SO, WHAT’S IT ALL MEAN?
The Supreme Court for all intents and purposes adopted the very warnings the FBI was using at the time Miranda was decided. For all the novelty attributed to the Warren Court in this case, they really just followed the FBI's guidance, with some very minor changes.
Of course, since that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out exception after exception to their own Miranda rule. See, for example, Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U. S. 222, New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U. S. 649, Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U. S. 298.
In a sense, we were better off under the FBI's rules. Imagine that!
J Edgar Hoover memo