Miranda Warning Rights
The United States Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to be able to defend themselves with the help of a professional lawyer and self-incrimination. It is important to note that Miranda rights are a mandate imposed on law enforcement to explicitly state one’s rights to remain silent and cooperate only through the help of a lawyer (“Why the Miranda decision still matters 51 years later,” 2021). Although the warning requirement was established more than 50 years ago by one of the most progressive Supreme Court, since then, the Miranda rights have been slowly deconstructed and chipped away with various expectations and loopholes introduced by Supreme Court within the past five decades.
Current Validity of Miranda Rights
It should be noted that the current state of Miranda rights is not as strong and valid as it was initially established. It is stated that the rights were created in accordance with “1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona. It is meant to protect Americans from submitting to the police simply because they think, under the circumstances, that they have no other choice” (Willis, 2020, para. 2). In other words, it brought a significant correction to the power imbalance between law enforcement and civilians, especially members of minority groups. Nowadays, the Miranda rights underwent major changes with the introduction of new loopholes and exceptions in favor of law enforcement rather than regular citizens. However, the very essence of the legal concept still remains and shields civilians from unconstitutional actions from the police and prosecutors.
Miranda Rights Changing Cases
One of the first dissents of Miranda rights began with the arrival of the Nixon administration, which enabled subsequent alterations to the warning mandates by introducing more conservative judges to the Supreme Court. The first case that led to the first major change in Miranda rights took place in 1971 where “the Court said in Harris v. New York that prosecutors could use illegally obtained confessions to discredit a defendant’s testimony, even if they couldn’t use it as evidence of their guilt” (Willis, 2020, para. 13). In other words, the first loophole was introduced, where prosecutors could use confessions made by suspects or defendants before they received the Miranda warning in the courtroom.
The next alteration took place a decade later, where the change was centered around the concept and definition of interrogation. The case was Rhode Island v. Innis, where Innis was tricked and pressured to admit where the gun was located without any Miranda warning and provision of a lawyer. The tactic used by police officers was based on invoking guilt, which was later led to a confession by the suspect. The justices declared that “interrogation” is an action where police officers “should know are reasonably likely” to receive a response, but a mere conversation between law enforcement members cannot be categorized as such (Willis, 2020, para. 16). In other words, the very definition of interrogation was changed in order to slowly strip away citizens’ Miranda rights by making interrogations defined as such only if the interrogators expect to get a response.
The following major change to Miranda rights was focused on the silence itself. It is stated that “in the 2010 case of Berghuis v. Thompkins,” Justice Anthony Kennedy elaborated that “silence, by itself, was not enough to invoke the right to remain silent; instead, suspects must assert it “unambiguously” (Willis, 2020, para. 19). In other words, the act of remaining silent was weaponized against a person, where he or she must invoke his or her Miranda rights by declaring them directly and explicitly. It is evident that it was a major power shift from civilians to prosecutors.
The Recent Decisional Change
Moreover, the Court, in Salinas v. Texas, extended the described logic by stating that “if a person who isn’t in custody doesn’t answer a police officer’s questions, that silence can be used against him in court later unless he expressly invokes his Miranda rights—rights that police haven’t even read to him yet” (Willis, 2020, para. 22). Therefore, simply remaining silent was not sufficient any longer, where the defendant must declare to use his or her Miranda rights and communicate it unambiguously. This can be considered as the most recent major change to Miranda rights, and one can easily see how the originally introduced concept was severely altered due to a wide range of additions and loopholes for the law enforcement to be able to avoid the provision of the warning and utilization of the pre-warning statements through deliberately designed interrogation tactics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the initial introduction of Miranda rights was made with the intent of enabling regular citizens to be able to exercise their constitutional rights. However, the consecutive five decades made severe alterations to the original concept with the addition of new loopholes, exceptions, and definitional changes. Although Miranda rights are meant to establish and maintain a power balance between prosecutors and civilians, the recent modifications shift the power in the former’s favor by stripping away people’s constitutional rights from them.
References
Why the Miranda decision still matters 51 years later. (2021). Web.
Willis, J. (2020). The Supreme Court’s war on Miranda rights in America. The Appeal. Web.