Troy was arrested after a taxi cab driver who had been the victim of armed robbery identified Troy’s photograph in a lineup. The police later spotted Troy in an area near a school for disabled children. Police arrested Troy and read him his Miranda warnings. He told the police that he understood his rights and wanted to speak to a lawyer. The police then put him into a patrol car to be transported to the police station. While on the way to the police station, two of the policemen in the car with Troy talked about how a child at the school might find a discarded weapon and could get hurt by it. Troy, after overhearing the conversation between the two police officers, interrupted the officers and directed them to turn the patrol car around and return to the school so he could show them where he discarded the gun. He was again read his Miranda warnings but told the police that he wanted to get the gun away from where children might find it. He then led them to the gun.
What amendment is at issue here? [5th Amendment]
What does the 5th Amendment protect? [No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.]
What does that mean for these facts? [It means that the police officer police officers were required to read Troy his Miranda warnings after taking him into custody and once he said that he wanted a lawyer, they could not question him further.]
What do you think the Court held in this case? [The Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fifth Amendment, the police may not interrogate a suspect that is in custody after he or she indicates that he or she wants a lawyer. The Court concluded that a custodial interrogation meant questioning BY the police or any words or actions by the police that the police should have known are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Court concluded that express questioning did not occur in this case and that the police should NOT have reasonably known that their conversation would have elicited an incriminating response. In reaching this decision, the Court focused on the short duration of the conversation and the fact that there was nothing to indicate that these comments would be particularly susceptible to this appeal to his conscious.]
What are Miranda warnings? [The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).]