Editing Miranda warning (section)

==Confusion regarding use==
Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure—in the 2000 ''Dickerson'' decision, Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote that ''Miranda'' warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture".<ref>''[[Dickerson v. United States]]'' {{ussc|530|428|2000}}.</ref>

While arrests and interrogations can legally occur without the ''Miranda'' warning being given, this procedure would generally make the arrestee's pre-''Miranda'' statements inadmissible at trial. (However, pursuant to the plurality opinion in ''[[United States v. Patane]]'', physical evidence obtained as a result of pre-''Miranda'' statements may still be admitted. There was no majority opinion of the Court in that case.)<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/630/ |access-date=2023-04-14 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref>

In some jurisdictions,{{where|date=July 2011}} a ''detention'' differs at law from an ''arrest'', and police are not required to give the ''Miranda'' warning until the person is arrested for a crime. In those situations, a person's statements made to police are generally admissible even though the person was not advised of their rights. Similarly, statements made while an arrest is in progress before the ''Miranda'' warning was given or completed are also generally admissible.

Because ''Miranda'' applies only to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions such as name and address. Because it is a protective measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood without a warrant from persons suspected of [[Drunk driving (United States)|driving under the influence of alcohol]]. (Such evidence may be self-incriminatory, but are not considered statements of self-incrimination.)

If an inmate is in jail and invoked ''Miranda'' on one case, it is unclear whether this extends to any other cases that they may be charged with while in custody. For example, a subject is arrested, charged with [[cattle raiding]], and is held in county jail awaiting trial. He invokes his ''Miranda'' rights on the cattle case. While in custody, he is involved in a fight where a staff member loses his ability to walk. He speaks to the custodial staff regarding the fight without first invoking ''Miranda''. It is unclear if this statement is admissible because of the original ''Miranda'' statement.

Many police departments give special training to interrogators with regard to the ''Miranda'' warning; specifically, how to influence a suspect's decision to waive the right. For instance, the officer may be required to specifically ask if the rights are understood and if the suspect wishes to talk. The officer is allowed, before asking the suspect a question, to speak at length about evidence collected, witness statements, etc. The officer will ''then'' ask if the suspect wishes to talk, and the suspect is then more likely to talk in an attempt to refute the evidence presented. Another tactic commonly taught is never to ask a question; the officer may simply sit the suspect down in an interrogation room, sit across from him and do paperwork, and wait for the suspect to begin talking.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/james-duane-lect-deb/Don't+Talk+to+the+Police+%5Bd-7o9xYp7eE%5D.mp4 Prof. James Duane and Officer George Bruch – Fifth Amendment Lecture at Regent University].</ref> These tactics are intended to mitigate the restrictions placed on law officers against compelling a suspect to give evidence, and have stood up in court as valid lawful tactics. Nevertheless, such tactics are condemned by legal rights groups as deceptive.<ref>{{cite journal |last=White|first=Welsh S. |title=Interrogation without Questions: Rhode Island v. Innis and United States v. Henry|journal=Michigan Law Review |year=1980|volume=78 |issue=8 |pages=1209-1251 [p. 1211] |doi=10.2307/1288369 |jstor=1144162|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol78/iss8/2 }}</ref>

===Exemption for interrogations conducted by undercover agents===
In ''[[Illinois v. Perkins]]'', 496 U.S. 292 (1990), the [[United States Supreme Court]] held that undercover officers are not required to give suspects a ''Miranda'' warning prior to asking questions that may elicit incriminating responses. In this case, an undercover agent posed as an inmate and carried on a 35-minute conversation with another inmate that he suspected of committing a murder that was being investigated. During this conversation, the suspect implicated himself in the murder that the undercover agent was investigating.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/292 |title=496 U.S. 292 (1990)|publisher=Supreme.justia.com |access-date=2014-07-09}}</ref>

The Supreme Court came to this conclusion despite the government's admission that a custodial interrogation had been conducted by a government agent.

===Report of warnings being given to detainees in Afghanistan===
Beginning in 2009, some detainees captured in [[Afghanistan]] have been read their ''Miranda'' rights by the [[FBI]], according to Congressman [[Mike Rogers (Michigan politician)|Michael Rogers]] of Michigan, who claims to have witnessed this himself. According to the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]], "There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction for FBI agents to ''Mirandize'' detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have ''Mirandized'' suspects overseas at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/lawmaker-says-obama-ordered-fbi-read-rights-detainees/ |title=U.S. Lawmaker Says Obama Administration Ordered FBI to Read Rights to Detainees |publisher=FOXNews.com |date=June 11, 2009 |access-date=2010-05-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090822082506/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/lawmaker-says-obama-ordered-fbi-read-rights-detainees/ |archive-date=August 22, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |date=June 10, 2009 |title=Miranda Rights for Terrorists |url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp |magazine=The Weekly Standard |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110622083519/http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp |archive-date=2011-06-22 |access-date=2010-05-08}}</ref>