If there is a situation where police don't interrogate you after an arrest, can they forego the Miranda warning? Is it the case that they do not intend to rely on any testimony gotten in an interrogation to prosecute you?
This may just be hypothetical and may very well never happen in real life, but is there a civil rights violation if there is no interrogation and no Miranda warning?
is there a civil rights violation if there is no interrogation and no miranda warning?
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the failure to warn is not a violation of a constitutional right, no matter whether interrogation follows. It would be the introduction of the resulting evidence at trial that would be the violation.
See Vega v. Tekoh (2022).
The Court phrased the prophylactic rule from Miranda as only "requir[ing] custodial interrogation be preceded by the now-familiar warnings."
But a failure to give that warning does not constitute a constitutional violation. At page 13 of the slip opinion):
[A] violation of Miranda... does not constitute "the deprivation of [a] right . . . secured by the Constitution."
"... the same is true of Miranda’s detailed rules about the waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney." It's not the warning that ultimately matters — rather, what matters is the adherence to the constitutional requirements.
No, there is no civil rights violation if the police fail to Mirandize you, regardless of whether they interrogate you, and regardless of whether you said anything.
Miranda warnings are a procedural safeguard of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; they are not a right in and of themselves. Vega v. Tekoh, 142 S. Ct. 2095, 2106 (2022) (“A violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution, and therefore such a violation does not constitute the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution.").
Therefore, the police do not need to give you a Miranda warning unless they are going to interrogate you and try to use your statements as evidence against you.
PACE Code C, Section 10, issued under the requirements of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 66, imposes these requirements on an arresting officer:
10.1 A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence, must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution.
Also,
10.4 As required by Code G, section 3, a person who is arrested, or further arrested, must also be cautioned unless:
So the answer is No - the caution cannot be omitted when arresting a person, except as provided in the cases specified by the "unless":
(a) it is impracticable to do so by reason of their condition or behaviour at the time;
(b) they have already been cautioned immediately prior to arrest as in paragraph 10.1.
The standard form of the caution, in Code G, is
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
or
“Does dim rhaid i chi ddweud dim byd. Ond gall niweidio eich amddiffyniad os na fyddwch chi’n sôn, wrth gael eich holi, am rywbeth y byddwch chi’n dibynnu arno nes ymlaen yn y Llys. Gall unrhyw beth yr ydych yn ei ddweud gael ei roi fel tystiolaeth.”
But the caution given does not need to be word-for-word identical:
Minor deviations from the words of any caution given in accordance with this Code do not constitute a breach of this Code, provided the sense of the relevant caution is preserved.
And the notes to Code G mention that:
4 Nothing in this Code requires a caution to be given or repeated when informing a person not under arrest they may be prosecuted for an offence. However, a court will not be able to draw any inferences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34, if the person was not cautioned.
5 If it appears a person does not understand the caution, the person giving it should explain it in their own words.
