About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

17 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 627 (1983-1984)
The Applicability of Miranda Warnings to Non-Felony Offenses: Is the Proper Standard Custodial Interrogation or Severity of the Offense

handle is hein.journals/umijlr17 and id is 637 raw text is: THE APPLICABILITY OF MIRANDA
WARNINGS TO NON-FELONY OFFENSES:
IS THE PROPER STANDARD CUSTODIAL
INTERROGATION OR SEVERITY OF
THE OFFENSE?
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda v.
Arizona, which required law enforcement officers to inform criminal
suspects of their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination' prior
to the initiation of custodial interrogation.' Although the Supreme Court
has redefined and sharpened the focus of the Miranda decision on
numerous occasions,3 it has not yet specifically addressed the
applicability of the Miranda warnings to non-felony offenses such as
misdemeanors and traffic infractions.
Although the majority of states have required that police give
Miranda warnings to suspects prior to custodial questioning for any
offense,5 several states have held that the warnings are not necessary
1. No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
U.S. CoNsT. amend. V.
2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The Court declared that
when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the
authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against
self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect
the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person
of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously
honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any ques-
tioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against
him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if
he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning
if he so desires.
384 U.S. at 478-79.
3. See generally G. Stone, The Miranda Doctrine in the Burger Court, 1977 Sup. CT. REV. 99.
4. See, e.g., Capler v. City of Greenville, 207 So. 2d 339 (Miss.) (finding warnings not necessar-
ily required for misdemeanors), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 941 (1968); State v. Lewin, 163 N.J. Super.
439, 395 A.2d 211 (App. Div. 1978), certification denied, 81 N.J. 58, 404 A.2d 1157, cert. denied,
444 U.S. 905 (1979) (denying certiorari over the dissent of three justices, when statements elicited
without benefit of Miranda warnings following drunk driving arrest were later used in prosecu-
tion for death by auto); State v. Pyle, 19 Ohio St. 2d 64, 249 N.E.2d 826 (1969) (holding Miranda
warnings not required in misdemeanor interrogations), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1007 (1970); State
v. Darnell, 8 Wash. App. 627, 508 P.2d 613 (requiring Miranda warning for all custodial inter-
rogations; traffic violation interrogation not necessarily custodial), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1112
(1973).
5. See, e.g., Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971) (requiring Miranda
warnings in misdemeanor arrests); State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz. App. 251, 431 P.2d 691 (1967) (requir-
627

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most