{"id":7223,"date":"2023-10-26T15:23:49","date_gmt":"2023-10-26T15:23:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=7223"},"modified":"2026-09-17T06:23:50","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T13:23:50","slug":"acknowledgement-of-understanding-miranda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=7223","title":{"rendered":"Acknowledgement of Understanding Miranda"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cIf after reading a suspect his Miranda rights<\/a>, he does not acknowledge that he understands them, but begins talking, can the officer continue with the interrogation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is John Wiehn, attorney and legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, with another question on a new topic.<\/p>\n

In effect, basically, what we’re asking is, \u201cDo I need an express statement acknowledging understanding from the suspect?\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0 And the answer is \u201cNo.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

But let’s get into it.\u00a0 A suspect was found and arrested for an assault.\u00a0 He was read his Miranda warnings and did not respond when asked if he understood them and wanted to speak.\u00a0 Can the officer continue asking questions about the case?\u00a0 Or does not speaking imply that he doesn’t want to talk?\u00a0 Also, if the suspect started talking after a minute, does this mean he is willing to speak and further interrogation is permissible?<\/p>\n

What exactly does Miranda require you to say?<\/h2>\n

So basically, obviously, the first case that we will be dealing with here is the 1966 case, Miranda versus Arizona.\u00a0 And that is the most well known case in the United States and probably in the world.\u00a0 And it is what we all know from thousands and thousands of examples on movies and TV shows and cops and live PD, and body cam footage now.<\/p>\n

The language of Miranda versus Arizona says that prior to any question, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to an attorney.\u00a0 And if he cannot afford one, then the attorney will\u00a0 be appointed for him.\u00a0 Those are the rights that are required to be read by Miranda.<\/p>\n

What makes a Miranda waiver valid?<\/h2>\n

Now, the defendant basically can waive these rights.\u00a0 But that waiver<\/a> has to be voluntary, knowing and intelligent.\u00a0 And if you vary significantly, from the language of Miranda versus Arizona, the burden is going to be on the officer to show that that waiver was made voluntarily and knowingly and intelligently.<\/p>\n

California versus Prysock is a 1981 case.\u00a0 That’s the case that said substantial compliance with the language of Miranda v. Arizona is required.\u00a0 Alright.\u00a0 So what does knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently mean?<\/p>\n

What do voluntary, knowing and intelligent actually mean?<\/h2>\n

Well, voluntarily, let’s start with that.\u00a0 It can’t be coerced.\u00a0 You can’t beat confessions out of somebody.\u00a0 The the consensual nature must be such that the person’s free will wasn’t overborne.\u00a0 The government’s authority wasn’t so overbearing, that the person lacked freewill and basically didn’t have a choice in the matter.<\/p>\n

And then knowingly means they have to be informed of their rights, and then intelligently means they have to have understood their rights.\u00a0 So when we talk about knowingly, I mean, basically, aren’t we at knowingly already?\u00a0 I mean, this case has been around for 56 years.\u00a0 As already mentioned, there have been countless examples on TV and in movies. People know their Miranda rights.\u00a0 But the bottom line is that the burden, the onus, is going to be on the prosecutor to show that this waiver was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. \u00a0 So help that prosecutor out.\u00a0 Read the rights from a department issued card, verbatim.<\/p>\n

Now, to show that the rights were waived, the waiver must have been obtained intelligently.\u00a0 Intelligently means that they not only knew their rights, but that they understood them. They understood what it was you were saying and the implications of what was going to happen if they waived them.<\/p>\n

Do you need the suspect to say yes, I understand?<\/h2>\n

Officers are technically not required to obtain an express waiver and express understanding of \u201cyes,\u201d and express acknowledgement of \u201cyes, I understand my rights.\u201d\u00a0 A lot of officers do you say, \u201cDo you understand these rights as I’ve read them to you?\u00a0 I need a yes or no.\u201d\u00a0 Then you get that express acknowledgement of their understanding of their rights.\u00a0 However, that’s not required.<\/p>\n

Courts can look at it and say that under a totality of the\u00a0 circumstances approach, we can make a determination.\u00a0 Did they intelligently waive these rights?\u00a0 Did they understand the rights?\u00a0 However, it’s going to be a totality of circumstances analysis.\u00a0 If you obtain that expressed acknowledgement of understanding, then you don’t need to have your prosecutor fight through this.<\/p>\n

Courts look at the totality of circumstances here.\u00a0 They will look at their\u00a0 criminal history, look at their familiarity with the legal process, look how many times they’ve been down this road, look at their their command of the English language.\u00a0 All those factors are going to go into it.<\/p>\n

And of course, a prosecutor is not going to meet to fight that battle, if you obtain that express, knowing, and intelligent waiver.\u00a0 The 1986 case, Moran v. Burbine is the case that held that you don’t need to get that express acknowledgement of that express understanding.<\/p>\n

Should you get an express acknowledgement anyway?<\/h2>\n

However, you’re playing a dangerous game if you don\u2019t.\u00a0 So to answer the original question, he doesn’t say that he understands but begins talking.\u00a0 Can the officer continue with the interrogation?\u00a0 The answer is \u201cyes.\u201d\u00a0 But it’s not the best way to do it.\u00a0 Absolutely not.<\/p>\n

Get that express acknowledgement.\u00a0 Lock in that intelligent waiver and say, \u201cDo you understand your rights?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cUh huh.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo, sir.\u00a0 I need a yes or a no.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n

And then continue with your investigation.<\/p>\n

I hope this helps.\u00a0 Please, if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to submit them to us at\u00a0 blue to gold.com\/show.\u00a0 We’ll do what we can to help you make sure you get it right every time.\u00a0 Stay safe.<\/p>\n

Related from Blue to Gold<\/h2>\n