Amendment, police must warn people of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney
before commencing a custodial interrogation. The warning need not be verbatim, but it
must convey that (1) the person has the right to remain silent, (2) anything they say can
be used against them at trial, (3) they have the right to speak to an attorney, and (4) that
if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided. The trigger for these warnings is
custodial interrogation. An interaction is "custodial" any time a reasonable person
would not feel free to leave, and would expect that the detention will not be of relatively
short duration, as with a routine automobile stop or a Terry stop. Another test for
whether the interaction is custodial is whether it presents the same inherently coercive
pressures as a station-house questioning. The interaction is an "interrogation" any time
the police act in a way that they know or should know is likely to elicit an incriminating
response. They need not actually conduct a formal interrogation, as long as this
likelihood exists. Violations of a suspect's Miranda rights provide grounds to suppress
any incriminating statements, though they will not necessarily lead to the suppression of
the investigatory fruit of such statements.
Here, Debbie was clearly subject to a custodial interrogation. She was in custody
because she was being arrested. Bob had just identified himself as a police officer,
handcuffed her, and begun searching her. No reasonable person would feel free to
leave such an arrest, and any questions asked while being handcuffed and arrested are
just as coercive as questioning at a police station-house. Moreover, Debbie was
subject to interrogation, because Bob, upon finding the cocaine, asked her "What have
we got here?" Bob should have known that this question, asked by a police officer
about a suspicious substance found on Debbie's person in the course of an arrest, was
likely to elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, Debbie's incriminating response
identifying the substance as cocaine is subject to suppression. So is her statement
about being in trouble, which has the tendency to incriminate her by demonstrating her
awareness of culpability.
The court should therefore grant her motion to suppress her post-arrest statement
under Miranda. That said, the physical evidence itself - the bag of white powder - need
not be suppressed, because Miranda suppression applies only to testimonial