Misinterpreting the Value of the Beheler Admonishment

Misinterpreting the Value of the Beheler Admonishment

Robert C. Phillips
DDA (Ret)
August, 2018

            Since first imposed on law enforcement, when in 1966 the United States Supreme Court first announced the rule of Miranda,[1] police interrogators have been looking for a convenient yet legal way to avoid the requirement that in-custody suspects must be told that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney before and during questioning.  Think about it:  How ridiculous is it that a police officer seeking to solve a crime, must, in effect, shoot himself in the foot by trying to talk a suspect out of confessing when all the officer really wants is for him to confess  

            Well, never underestimate the genius of a police officer.  Somewhere along the line, someone thought up the brilliant tactic of taking the custody out of an interrogation—thus eliminating the need for a Miranda advisal—by simply telling the suspect being questioned that he is not under arrest and is free to leave at any time he might so choose.  This works because it has been ruled any number of times that for the Miranda rule to apply, the suspect must be “in custody.”[2]

            “Custody,” for purposes of Miranda, occurs when a person has been “deprived of his (or her) freedom in any significant way.”© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.