§ 24.08 MEANING OF MIRANDA: "INTERROGATION"

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 24.08. Meaning of Miranda: "Interrogation"¹³²

[A] In General

[1] Rule

In Rhode Island v. Innis,¹³³ I was arrested for a murder in which the weapon used in the crime had not yet been discovered. I was placed in a police car with three officers. En route to the police station, one of the officers remarked to a colleague that a school for handicapped children was in the vicinity, and that "God forbid one of [the children] might find a weapon with shells and they might hurt themselves." After the officer added that "it would be too bad if a little girl would pick up the gun, maybe kill herself," I interrupted and offered to show the police where he had abandoned the weapon.

These events occurred after Miranda warnings had been given. However, I had previously asked to see a lawyer, and in such circumstances the police are required to cease interrogation until the suspect talks to his attorney.¹³⁴ The precise issue in the case, therefore, was whether the handicapped-children statement by the officer constituted "interrogation," so as to violate the "cease interrogation" rule.

According to Innis, for purposes of Miranda, "interrogation" refers not only to "express questioning," but also to its "functional equivalent." The "functional equivalent" of express questioning is "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

[2] A Closer Look at the Rule

According to Innis, the "functional equivalent" form of interrogation "focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police." In other words, the officer's subjective intent to elicit an incriminating response by his words or actions is not the key. Instead, the Innis test is primarily objective: Should the officer have realized that his actions or words were reasonably likely to result in an incriminating response from the suspect? In criminal mens rea terms, an "interrogation" occurs if an officer was negligent in failing to foresee that his words or actions were likely to result in an incriminating response from the suspect.

Although the mental state of the police officer is not the focus of the Innis test, it may be relevant in determining whether an interrogation has occurred. The Court warned that "any knowledge the police may have had concerning the susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of persuasion might be an important factor in determining whether the...