NOTE: This article was updated to reflect changes to the Illinois Human Rights Act after January 1, 2020. Since that date, Public Act 101-565 became effective and adjusted Illinois state law concerning the use of arrest records for employment purposes.
Everyone has seen it on TV. When a person gets arrested, the police read their rights. Only a rule this simple could cause so much confusion among people who have been arrested.
The rights everyone is referring to are those provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In that case, the defendant gave a confession and was later convicted of the rape and kidnapping of an 18-year-old girl. The Supreme Court threw out the conviction and established a rule that a suspect must be warned of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.
…a suspect must be warned of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney.
Illinois courts are bound by the Miranda decision, and so, police officers must warn the defendant of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. Police, judges, and lawyers refer to this process as giving the ”Miranda warnings.”
But there is an exception to this rule, and this exception is the cause of much confusion.
When do police not have to read a suspect their rights?
The police do not always have to give a suspect the Miranda warnings. They have to read their rights only if they want to ask questions. If the police are not going to ask any questions, then they do not have to read a suspect their rights.
Miranda warnings apply only where the police are trying to interrogate a suspect and obtain evidence to use in court. When the police make an arrest but do not ask the suspect any incriminating questions, the Miranda warnings are not required.
It is perfectly legal for the police to handcuff a suspect, put them in the squad, drive them to the station, and hold them in a cell – without ever reading them their rights. However, if the police want to get a suspect to admit to a crime or sign a written confession, then the police must read the suspect their rights (e.g., the Miranda warnings).
The rationale for the rule involves the U.S. Constitution. Under the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a suspect has the right to remain silent. Under 6th Amendment right to counsel, a suspect must be allowed to retain an attorney. If a person confesses to a crime without knowing that they can remain silent or consult with an attorney, then their confession is not considered voluntary. The confession is not voluntary because the suspect was not fully informed.
Any statement made by a defendant that is not voluntary is inadmissible. It cannot be used as evidence against them in court.
When can a statement be suppressed?
In any case where the defendant made an statement, the attorney needs to determine whether they were Mirandized. If they were not told they could remain silent or consult with an attorney, then the statement can be suppressed.
The practical effect of suppressing a statement cannot be overstated. Before, the case against the defendant consisted of circumstantial evidence and a confession. But after suppression, the case consists only of circumstantial evidence. This makes it easier for the judge or jury to find reasonable doubt and acquit the defendant.
In common practice, Illinois law enforcement officers usually read a suspect the Miranda warnings in this manner:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
If the above rights are not read, any statements made by the person arrested should be thrown out. Moreover, the Illinois Human Rights Act prevents the required disclosure of arrest records in numerous employment-related situations.
