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.
B. Drown
NHComCor.com