Definitions

Custody

A formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. Determined by a totality-of-circumstances test (Stansbury v. California; Howes v. Fields).

Interrogation

Express questioning or its functional equivalent — words or actions on the part of the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (Rhode Island v. Innis).

Public Safety Exception

A narrow exception permitting limited unwarned questioning when a question is necessary to address an immediate threat to public safety (New York v. Quarles).

Purpose

To ensure custodial interrogations produce voluntary, admissible statements while respecting the constitutional rights of the person being questioned.

Scope

Applies to all sworn members conducting investigative questioning of persons in custody or in circumstances that may equate to custody for Miranda purposes.

When Miranda Applies

• Miranda applies when both custody and interrogation are present.
• Both elements are required — voluntary statements made in custody but not in response to interrogation are admissible without Miranda warnings.
• Routine booking questions (name, address, date of birth) are not interrogation.
• Spontaneous statements by the person in custody are admissible without warnings.
• Brief detention for investigation (a Terry stop) is not 'custody' for Miranda purposes — but the line is fact-specific. When in doubt, advise.

Miranda Advisement

Before custodial interrogation, the officer shall advise the person of the following rights, in language the person understands:

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before questioning.
5. You may stop answering questions at any time.
6. After advisement, the officer shall ask: 'Do you understand these rights?' and 'With these rights in mind, do you want to talk to me?'
7. Both advisement and the responses are recorded on BWC. A signed waiver form, where used, is in addition to recording, not in place of it.

Waiver

• Waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
• Express waiver (verbal 'yes' or signed form) is preferred.
• Implied waiver (continued conversation after advisement and understanding) is permitted under Berghuis v. Thompkins but is more vulnerable to challenge.
• Officers consider age, language, education, mental state, intoxication, sleep deprivation, and prior experience.
• Where any indicator suggests the person may not understand, the officer pauses, re-advises, and seeks clarification.

Invocation

• Invocation of the right to silence must be 'simply, unambiguously, or unequivocally invoked' (Berghuis v. Thompkins) — but courts increasingly scrutinize officer conduct after equivocal statements.
• If the person says 'I don't want to talk' or 'I want a lawyer,' officers immediately cease interrogation.
• If the person makes an ambiguous statement, officers may seek clarification but shall not exploit ambiguity to continue interrogation.
• After invocation, officers may not re-initiate interrogation about the same offense unless: (a) the person initiates the conversation, (b) the person is released from custody for at least 14 days (Maryland v. Shatzer), or (c) counsel is present.
• Invocation is documented and respected across the agency — other officers questioning later are bound.

Juveniles

• Juvenile interrogations receive enhanced scrutiny.
• Officers consider age, maturity, intelligence, family presence.
• Many states require parental notification and presence for juvenile custodial interrogation; comply with state requirements.
• J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) — age is a relevant factor in determining custody for Miranda purposes.

Public Safety Exception

• Limited unwarned questioning is permitted when necessary to address an immediate threat to public safety (e.g., location of a weapon, presence of an accomplice posing immediate threat).
• Use is narrow and fact-specific.
• Questions are limited to the safety concern.
• Officers transition to Miranda advisement as soon as the safety concern is addressed.

Voluntariness

Even with Miranda compliance, statements must be voluntary. Officers do not use threats, false promises of leniency, deception about evidence (some forms permissible, some prohibited — consult counsel and state law), physical coercion, prolonged interrogation without breaks, denial of food, water, or sleep. Documentation of conditions during questioning is essential.

Recording

• All custodial interrogations recorded electronically — BWC, room audio-video, or other reliable means.
• Recording is continuous from advisement through end of session.
• Breaks documented; resumed advisement and waiver after substantial break.
• Many states require recording of custodial interrogations for certain offenses; agency policy meets or exceeds state minimums.

Documentation

• Officer documents the advisement, waiver, and the substance of the interrogation.
• Time and location.
• Any invocation and officer response.
• Conditions of the interrogation (breaks, food / water, length).
• Presence of counsel or other persons.
• Identification of the recording.

Training

• Initial Miranda and interrogation training at academy.
• Annual refresher.
• Specialized training for detectives and investigators in evidence-based interview techniques.
• Joint training with prosecutors on jurisdiction-specific case law.

Special Considerations

• Persons with limited English proficiency: provide a qualified interpreter; advise and waiver in the person's primary language.
• Persons with cognitive disability or apparent mental illness: enhanced scrutiny; involve counsel; consider deferring interrogation.
• Persons under the influence: defer non-essential interrogation until the person is sober.

References

• Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)
• Edwards v. Arizona451 U.S. 477 (1981)
• Rhode Island v. Innis446 U.S. 291 (1980)
• Berghuis v. Thompkins560 U.S. 370 (2010)
• New York v. Quarles467 U.S. 649 (1984)
• Maryland v. Shatzer559 U.S. 98 (2010)
• J.D.B. v. North Carolina564 U.S. 261 (2011)
• State Statute on Custodial Interrogation Recording[INSERT STATE]

Adapt this template

Before this template becomes your department's policy, review the following items and adjust accordingly. Anything else that does not match your operation should be updated as well.

• DRAFT — Requires legal review and SME sign-off before publication or adoption.
• Reconcile parental notification rules with state juvenile law.
• Identify the agency's electronic-recording method and any required forms.
• Cross-reference Search Incident to Arrest, Body-Worn Camera, and Brady / Giglio Disclosure policies.