Miranda Violations and Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

If a police officer questions a suspect who's in custody without giving the suspect the Miranda warnings, nothing the suspect says can be used against the suspect at trial to prove their guilt. But that's not the end of the story. The un-Mirandized statement and any other evidence it leads to might be admissible for other purposes.

Can Evidence Obtained in Violation of Miranda Be Used Against You?

Sometimes. Not all violations of Miranda result in the exclusion of evidence. Courts have made several exceptions and allowed statements to be introduced at trial if excluding them wouldn't serve the underlying purposes of Miranda.

Underlying Purpose of Miranda

Excluding evidence obtained in violation of Miranda seeks to prevent the police from abusing their power to obtain a confession. The Miranda warning informs suspects of their constitutional rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney. But, if excluding the evidence won't serve to deter police abuses, courts have generally allowed the evidence to be used at trial for certain purposes.

Miranda Violations Don't Always Require Excluding Evidence

In some cases, the court has determined the Miranda violation and the evidence ultimately obtained from it are far enough removed to eliminate the taint of the original violation. Generally, the original violation cannot be a flagrant abuse of power (like a forced confession). Other situations have led courts to allow in evidence if the cops would have found it anyway. Courts may also admit evidence for purposes other than to prove guilt.

Below, we discuss these exceptions and others that allow the use of a suspect's statement and any evidence that follows in trial, despite being obtained in violation of Miranda.

What Are the Exceptions to the Miranda Rule?

In the years since the Miranda case was decided (1966), several exceptions to the above rule have emerged from the courts. These exceptions assume that the only reason the statement is inadmissible in court is due to the Miranda violation (and not other possible forms of police misconduct, such as physical coercion).

Impeachment Purposes

If a defendant gives testimony at trial that conflicts with a statement made to the police, the prosecutor can offer a statement elicited in violation of Miranda to impeach (attack) the defendant's credibility. (Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).) Say the defendant testifies at trial that he has never sold drugs in his life. But during a police interrogation, he admitted to selling drugs in the past. The police obtained the pretrial statement in violation of Miranda. The prosecutor can't admit the statement to prove the defendant's crime but can use it for impeachment purposes to show the defendant is giving two different versions of the story (and one must be a lie).

Sentencing Purposes

Similarly, rules in many jurisdictions allow prosecutors to offer statements obtained in violation of Miranda against defendants in sentencing hearings. (U.S. v. Nichols, 438 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2006).) For example, assume police improperly get the defendant to admit that he was armed with a weapon when he committed a crime. The defendant's confession may not be admissible at trial to prove the defendant's guilt, but the prosecutor may offer it as evidence during sentencing to try to obtain a harsher sentence.

Public Safety Exception

In dangerous situations, the "public safety" exception allows police officers to question suspects about weapons without giving a Miranda warning. If the interrogation leads the police to a weapon, it can be used against the suspect at trial. (N.Y. v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).)

Discovery of Physical Evidence or Witness

Dangerous situation or not, any physical evidence (such as a threatening note or the loot from a robbery) that the police learn about through questioning that violates Miranda can generally be used against a suspect in court. This Supreme Court case established that the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to technical Miranda violations. (U.S. v. Patane, 543 U.S.630 (2004).)

If a statement taken in violation of Miranda leads the police to another witness, that witness can testify against a suspect at trial. (Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974).)

Inevitable Discovery Rule

If the police would have eventually found tangible evidence on their own, the evidence can be used against a suspect at trial despite police finding out about it during questioning that violated Miranda.

Getting Help From Your Lawyer

If you've been arrested or are facing questioning by police, it's generally best to consult with a criminal defense lawyer before answering questions. Suspects sometimes mistakenly think that what they say—or evidence found because of what they say—won't be admissible if police didn't read their Miranda rights.

A lawyer can help protect your constitutional rights and navigate the complex criminal legal system.