The Law of Custodial Interrogation

In the Case of Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is held in a place against his or her or hae will and is questioned, then any information derived from this interrogation is unconstitutionally obtained and inadmissable. Moreover, the police officer conducting the illegal interrogation is subject to civil liability for violating 42 United States Code section 1983. Additionally, in order to avoid this problem the law inforcement officer must inform the detained person that he or she or hae has the right to have an attorney present during any interrogation or interview by law enforcement. Failure to give the person the warning is an illegal action by law enforcement, and any information derived from the subsequent interview or interrogation is inadmissable and the law enforcement officer is once again subject to section 1983 liability, personally, and could even be subject to prison under 18 United States Code section 242 for ten years. The detained person is legally incompetent to waive the right to an attorney, except under the legal advice of an attorney at the time.