18-4

GENERAL ORDER 18-4 ADVISEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1 P L A N T C I T Y P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T General Order Title Advisement of Constitutional Requirements (MIRANDA WARNING ) General Order Number 18-4 Effective: 1/1/96 Revised: 09/16/2021 Reviewed: 09/03/2021 CFA: PURPOSE The purpose of this direc tive is to establish guidelines assuring compliance with Constitutional protec tion of individuals' rights. This directive applies to all sworn members. DISCUSSION The United States Su preme Court in "Miranda vs. Arizona" (1966) estab lished specific rules for law enforcement officers with regard to interviews of suspects and subjects and the taking of confessions or admis sions. The Supreme Court ruled that no one can use in a prosecution any statements made by a defendant whic h stem from "custodial interroga tion" of a defendant, unless the prosecution uses procedural safe guards effective to secure the suspect's F ifth Amend ment liberty against self-incrimination . Under the Court's ruling, the mini mum safe guards require that law en force ment officers advise a criminal sus pect of his/her Constitutional Rights before a custodial interroga tion. This advise ment has become known as the "Miranda Warning" and to issue such a warning is to “Mirandize" a suspect. There have been countless court deci sions since the Miranda case in which the princi ples of that ruling have been upheld when applied to various forms of custodial inter rogation. INTENT It is the intent of the Plant City Police De partment to have its sworn officers issue a Miranda Warn ing to offend ers when ever appropri ate. Failure to proper ly advise a sus pect of his/her Miranda Rights when such admonishment should be given can jeopardize the admissibili ty of the suspect's statement in court. Numer ous cases have been lost because offi cers failed to properly advise a sus pect of his/her Miranda Rights. A. Officers must advise a criminal suspect of his Constitutional rights before questioning such person about a crime (1) when a suspect is arrested, or (2) when questioning passes from the fact-finding process to a point where the suspect is led to believe, a s a reason able person, that he/she has been deprived of his/her freedom. It is the fact that the suspect is in custody which makes the interview a custodial interrogation. That is the determining factor of whether Miranda is required or not, and not the fact the suspect is the focus if the inves tigation. B. Officers are required to advise a suspect of his/her rights only once prior to the interrogation. Officers are not required to ad vise the sus pect of his rights prior to any subsequent re-interro gation within a reasonable RULES AND PROCEDURES 18-4.1 MIRANDA WARNING RE QUIRED GENERAL ORDER 18-4 ADVISEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2 time frame even if differ ent officers are involved. The exception to this would be if the interro gations were occur ring in different ses sions on different days. 1. Officers who choose not to ad vise a suspect of his/her rights , because it has already been done by another officer, must be cer tain the suspect fully understood his rights and free ly waived them before interro gation begins or the statement may be held as in admissible. 2. Officers are required to document the Advi sement of Constitutional Requirements (Miranda Warning) in an offense report regardless of the suspect ’s decision to waive or invoke their Constitutional Rights . Officers are to have the Miranda Rights Card signed and placed into evidence if the suspect w aives their Constitutional Rights. A. Officers are not required to advise a criminal suspect of his Constitution al rights under the Miranda ruling in the following situations: 1. During a traffic stop and the issuing of a traffic citation for a non -criminal traffic violation 2. Prior to conducting a field so briety test 3. When a person approaches an officer and states that he wishes to confess to a crime in the absence of ques tioning. Miranda warnings mu st be given once probable cause to effect an arrest has been established and the officer intends to further question the suspect. 4. During general on -the-scene in terviewing to determine the basic facts surrounding a crime, or during other general int erviewing of citizens as part of the fact-finding process. 5. During stop and frisk situations where there is insufficient prob able cause to effect an arrest. However, Miranda warnings must be given once the officer has formed a conscious intent to arre st the sus pect (and the suspect is being questioned by the officer). 6. During any noncustodial inter view being conducted at the suspect's home, office, etc. 7. When an officer does not wish to question a suspect 8. Officers are not required to advise a suspect of his Miranda Rights sim ply because he has been arrested. The Miranda ruling does not apply to custody without interroga tion. 9. A suspect's statements that are not the result of ques tioning by an officer are admissible even when the Miran da Warning has not been given. Such statements are