Also known as: reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response · Innis interrogation test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Words or actions by police officers other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody that officers should know are reasonably likely to prompt a suspect in custody to make an incriminating statement. The standard focuses on the perspective of a reasonable officer aware of the suspect's known susceptibilities rather than the officers' subjective intent. Generalized conversation not aimed at exploiting those susceptibilities falls outside the definition.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roger Ramirez sat handcuffed in a holding room after invoking his right to counsel. Two agents who knew of his pride in protecting pilots spoke within earshot about how pilots' lives depended on knowing exactly what schematics had leaked. Ramirez then admitted which documents he had transmitted.
Rosa Ruiz remained in custody after invoking counsel. Officers allowed her husband to visit and recorded their conversation without participating. Ruiz made incriminating statements during the exchange.
Raphael Rivera sat in a jail cell awaiting trial. An undercover officer posing as an inmate asked questions about a murder without giving warnings. Rivera made detailed admissions during the conversation.
Roland Rhodes was pulled over for a traffic violation and questioned at the scene. The officer asked whether Rhodes had been drinking and whether he possessed any weapons. Rhodes made incriminating admissions during the exchange.
No. The standard is objective and asks whether officers should have known their words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Officers' internal motives do not control the analysis.
Supporting sources
Conversation becomes interrogation when officers should know it is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response because it exploits a known susceptibility of the suspect. Generalized remarks that do not target such a vulnerability remain outside the definition.
…the respondent was subjected to a custodial interrogation when he was questioned by the officer. The officer’s questions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, and the respondent was not free to leave the scene. Pp. 438-442. 3. The Ohio Court of Appeals correctly held that the respondent’s statements should have been suppressed. Pp. 442-443.…
…holding that Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 (1966), prohibits all undercover contacts with incarcerated suspects that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
…or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
…or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
…or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
Supporting sources
Warnings are required only when the suspect is both in custody and subjected to interrogation. Custody exists when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, and interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Supporting sources
The standard applies whenever a suspect is in custody and officers engage in conduct they should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Undercover questioning in jail meets this test even without express warnings.
Supporting sources