Corrections Community

Kansas probation officers have recently had a couple of problems arise because they did not give Miranda warnings to probation clients, when in the judgement of the prosecutor or defense attorney they should have.

In your jurisdiction, do you ever give Miranda warnings to offenders on probation?  If so, under what circumstances?

We have never been told definately yes or no on this issue in NC.  It's a true wonder that it's not come up in our courts because we ordinarily do not Mirandize.  I've never seen any PPO's do it and I've been around for a while.

Kelly, NC DOC, Div. of Community Corrections

It has been highly suggested in Or.  I am currently developing a policy on when it should be done.  The current thought being it should only be required if there is some posibility of a new crime being charged.  It will be difficult to change old habits.

As a NH Probation/Parole Officer, I do not recall any specific training in Miranda, nor a policy or procedure on point.  As a police officer before becoming a PPO, I did receive specific training, so I had an advantage in dealing with this, and it was a topic of conversation with co-workers.  It comes up in both routine work, response to police information, and PSI’s.

 

Miranda warnings require that the suspect be in custody, that he/she is being questioned (interrogation) about specific criminal activity in which the client is a suspect.

 

NH probation/parole rules require clients to answer questions truthfully.  Failure to do so can result in revocation.  U.S. v. Rea talks about Miranda warnings defeating the purpose of the probation/parole system.

 

Most meetings between clients and officers are informal meetings at the probation office or client’s home, place of work, etc. and are not custodial settings.  Minnesota V Murphy speaks to this issue.

 

Problems arise when the PPO receives information from the police, or when the PPO’s purpose is to investigate a client to collect information for a criminal charge.  In State v. Lekas, (Kansas), the parole officers where investigating a felony committed by a parolee. The information obtained was to be used in a criminal trial.  This would make the parole officer an agent of the police and the custody of the parolee custodial for the purpose of interrogation, triggering the need for Miranda.

 

In my career, when police were seeking a client with information about new crimes, I would assist in finding the client, let the police do the interrogation, observe, and take action with the purpose of enforcing the rules of probation or parole.    I would always assume that once a client was in the custody of the police, Miranda applied.  I never gave Miranda rights to a client because I never tried to investigate for the purpose of criminal prosecution. 

 

That of course leaves the question of surprise information, such as a client meeting with a PPO and revealing information that is criminal, for instance, confessing to a rape, or murder.  Custody again is the issue here, and the “confession” is probably admissible.  State v. Roberts in Washington involves a telephone confession and Marcum v State in Texas involves a polygraph examination.  You might find Roberts vs. United States interesting.

 

Finally, there is the issue of judgments of the prosecutor and the defense attorney.  One has to listen to and conform to the direction of someone in their chain of command.  But, only the judge’s judgment counts.  The rest could just be politics.

 

My concern would be whatever jurisdiction you are in it is best to always Mirandarize. Anymore it seems there are many loopholes now days, be safe than sorry.

 

Much of your question is answered in the Supreme Court case of Minnesota v. Murphy (1984). Bottom line: A Miranda advisement should always occur when the PO has an offender in CUSTODY AND is INTERROGATING him/her about a CRIME (assuming you want to prosecute). It does not apply when questioning him/her about technical violations of supervision. Just being in the PO's office does not usually imply custody, though if the PO does not intend/allow the offender to leave, e.g., planned to arrest him/her after a conversation, that could constitute custody. There may be times you may question an offender about a crime they committed without intent to prosecute the crime or take them into custody, and, therefore, with no need to Mirandize them. For example, an infraction or misdemeanor that might be more effectively addressed as a violation than as a new crime. Another example is information obtained in sex offender polygraphs. Often times, previously unknowns sex crimes are revealed, but without further investigation, details are too limited for prosecution and the intent of the poly is for therapeutic and risk assessment purposes only. WA DOC does not Mirandize prior to polys (some jurisdictions do). However, if a new crime is revealed (committed while on supervision), we typically arrest the offender for failing to obey all laws (a violation), then contact police who Mirandize (we may already have done so at this time) the suspect and interrogate him/her (assuming he does not invoke his rights). See NIC's publication Civil Liabilities ad Other Legal Issues for Probation/Parole Officers and Supervisors and ACA's correspondence course, Legal Issues for Probation and Parole Officers, for more on this topic.

I actually do not believe that Miranda warning would apply to most cases of visiting a probation or probate office it is not actually a matter of criminal involvement most often the case is one of property disposal or service works on behalf of the community which causes the person to become involved with civil courts. We give criminals time or harsh treatments to make up for pains caused them in the actual crime, these are meant real and tangible, such as you stuck a person causing them physical pains. Actually that is beside the point, i suppose that a mandated probate officer could issue the you know that I must inform the police if you tell me of any plans that you have of hurting yourself or others however the conditions in which you meet with probation agents is under such a heavy mandate that you basicly understand that your duty is to secure the court and it's community ongoing funding for whatever cause. The terms of your sentence has been dictated and those are the standards on which you will be judged in the future so there is very little cause for further warning.