Miranda Rights Essay Sample

Based on the description given by the court, we could determine and discuss whether the "Custodial Interrogation" made by the two police officers to the defendant was constituted. When making this decision, it is crucial to consider the following facts. First, did she have the option to leave if she wanted, second why was the reason she got separated from her purse; the third did the suspect arrive at the place voluntarily and lastly and most importantly, at any point of the interrogation did the officer communicated, and read her "Miranda right." 

Although there are many different facts provided in this case, it is hard to make a decision and decide whether this interrogation was legal or not since it is her words against the officer's words. Furthermore, there was not any audio that could have been used for evidence or any camera footage of their approach; therefore, the decision would automatically lean more towards the defendant's favor, and that is because any reasonable person would not agree to discriminate and confess against themself;  unless there is a reason or pressure. In this case, the police officers and their approach was that pressure.

According to the description given by the officers, she was not boxed in; however, the defendant says the opposite. Considering the fact that she was facing the car, and there was an officer on each side, and behind her was the wall, it looks like she did not have the option to leave without having to trespass the officers, jump over the car, or turn back to go in the store, and find a backdoor to escape within the store. In other words, the suspect's space was restrained; she did not have the option to leave.

Another argument is the reason why the officers took her purse from her and put it in the car; by doing so, the message being sent is that he or she is being arrested. Although this might seem not essential, it is whatsoever because it connects with the previous reasoning I provided on top. Even if she had the freedom to leave, the suspect was in the officer's car. Also, she could not use her cell phone to call an attorney at the moment, even if she wanted to

Furthermore, although the police officers contacted her over the phone on many occasions, she missed the first couple of meetings. Clearly, she did not want to talk with the officer or confess anything. Due to the fact that the suspect would not go to the police station, the officers decided to go to the area where she would usually be around. They looked around for her and eventually found her at a convenience store and proceeded to do a pat-down on her, tell her how they know she is guilty, and take her purse away without her agreeing whatsoever. Although she did not resist, any individual in that situation would have done the same thing and contributed with officers out of anxiety or nervousness.

The last argument and the most important here is that under any circumstances, the officer told her that she was free to leave whenever she wanted or that she did not have to answer any of the questions being asked. As we all know, it is illegal to use any evidence against any individual if there is not a notice from the officer stating that anything they said could be used against them.  Based on these legal findings, we could determine that the suspect was being held to a "custodial Interrogation"; however, the way the officers conducted the interrogation was not constitutional.