When does your Terry stop run into Miranda?
Knowing how and where courts draw the line can be the difference between a successful prosecution and having your evidence suppressed
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney before interrogating them in police custody. “Custody” for Miranda purposes occurs when under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would consider himself to be deprived of his freedom to the degree associated with a formal arrest.
Miranda’s central concern was to protect the individual right against self-incrimination from the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation. Statements and evidence obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used against the defendant in court.
Terry’s Fourth Amendment exception
The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968) established an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause before seizing and searching someone.