 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Everett v. State11/24/2004
crimes.
B. Miranda and Its Progeny
On two separate occasions after Everett invoked his right to counsel under Miranda, law enforcement officers contacted him. On the first occasion, Everett was asked for his consent to provide DNA samples; on the second, officers served him with an arrest warrant. Everett contends these actions violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The issue presented concerns the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination and the procedures established to protect it. Accordingly, we begin by reviewing those principles.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that " o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. Thus, it protects a person accused of a crime from being compelled by the State to provide evidence against himself. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 (1966). In Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, the United States Supreme Court was concerned with the inherent pressures of in-custody interrogation and the importance of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court established prophylactic procedures intended to protect that right, which included requiring authorities to articulate, before custodial interrogation commences, four warnings now thoroughly ingrained in police procedure: (1) that the individual has the right to remain silent, (2) that anything the person says may be used in court, (3) that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and (4) that if the individual cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him before questioning. Id. at 479.
Once the warnings are given, the procedure is clear:
If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. . . . Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of an in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
Id. at 473-74 (emphasis added); see also Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 n.10 (1975) (noting that Miranda "distinguished between the procedural safeguards triggered by a request to remain silent and a request for an attorney and directed that 'the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present' only ' f the individual states that he wants an attorney'").
Clearly, Miranda requires that once a defendant has invoked the right to counsel during questioning, no further interrogation of that individual in custody is permitted, unless counsel is present. The Court, however, did not require counsel's presence for all further communications; only for interrogations. In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), the Court considered what constitutes "interrogation" for these purposes. First, the Court concluded that the character of interrogation "must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself." Id. at 300. The Court then defined the term as follows:
We conclude that the Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term "interrogation" und
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|