It depends, you say! In all my years as a probation officer and probation/parole officer, I cannot remember ever using Miranda. It is not because I am not familiar with Miranda. I had it memorized when I was working as a police officer and used it often, probably much more often than necessary.
Let’s review a couple of parole scenarios.
1. John is on parole after serving a year for a burglary conviction. Late one night his parole officer gets a call from the local police stating that John is in custody at the station suspected of having committed a home invasion in which a victim has been assaulted. The parole officer drives to the police station and meets with the arresting officer and learns that the parolee was found near the scene with blood on his knuckles. The parolee has told the police he wants to talk to his lawyer. The parole officer meets with his client and issues a detention order. The officer questions John about the incident. John tells the parole officer that the victim was dating his girlfriend while he was serving time at the state prison.
2. The parole officer is reviewing the police log in the local newspaper and learns that his client John is housed at the local jail on bail on a charge of burglary and assault. The parole officer proceeds to the police station and obtains a copy of the arrest reports. He learns that the parolee has requested a lawyer. The parole officer arrives at the jail and meets with John in the visitors’ area, issues a detention order and advises John of his right to a preliminary hearing. The officer questions John about the incident. John tells the parole officer that the victim was dating his girlfriend while he was serving time at the state prison.
The police want to use the parolee’s statement to the parole officer to prove motive for the crimes. Can they?
By now I would think that every probation/parole officer out there has heard and hopefully read People v. Elliott from the Michigan Supreme Court and the news headlines that indicate that a parole officer does not need to provide (or adhere to) Miranda requirements. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court. The decision by the Appeals court was affirmed by the silent refusal of the higher court to take up the issue. We all have to wait for another case to get a definitive answer to this question. In the meantime, what does a probation/parole officer do?
Consider the environment of the client and his/her status at the time. People v. Elliott is all about custody. Statements made during custodial interrogation that are the product of compulsion cannot be used at trial. Compulsion and/or coercive custodial custody includes psychological pressure as well as water-boarding.
I would suggest to you that the first scenario is “custodial interrogation” and the second scenario is not.
In the first scenario, the parole officer is at the police station with the arresting officer and his client. This is the exact scenario that Miranda v. Arizona addressed. The parolee is in the lions den, the station house with the arresting officer. He cannot leave. He is probably in handcuffs or in a temporary lock-up or at least guarded by a police officer. He is directly under the police officer’s control and the officer wants a confession.
In the second scenario the client is at the local jail being held on bail. The arresting officer is not present. Time has passed since the arrest. The parolee is probably back with friends. He can refuse to see or talk to anyone that shows up. He can ask for the protection of the correctional officers. He can interrupt any conversation with anyone by simply walking away.
Does the probation/parole officer have to give Miranda Warnings? No! Nor was this a requirement prior to this case. Probation/parole Officers are law enforcement officers in most jurisdictions, but you are not tasked with solving and prosecuting crimes. Will some of the information the probation/parole officer collects be suppressed at trial? Yes! Don’t take it personal.
