Over-Reaction. The Mischief of Miranda v. Arizona

Abstract

Immediately after the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in Washington, D.C. on the early afternoon of March 30, 1981, Secret Service agents and the District of Columbia police arrested John W. Hinckley, Jr. and took him to the local police headquarters, arriving there at 2:40 p.m. They wanted to question Hinckley not only as to his motive but also about the possible involvement of accomplices. Before doing so, however, they dutifully read to him the warnings of constitutional that the Supreme Court in 1966 mandated in its five to four decision in Miranda v. Arizona.1 The warnings given to Hinckley, as we shall see, contained embellishments of the ones specified in Miranda, and they were read to him on three separate occasions within a two hour period. After receiving the third set of warnings Hinckley was presented with a waiver of rights form on which he responded yes to the questions whether he had read his and understood them. Then he was asked whether he wished to answer any questions. At this point Hinckley answered, don't know. I'm not sure; I think I ought to talk to Joe Bates [his father's lawyer in Dallas]. Hinckley added: want to talk to you, but first I want to talk to Joe Bates.2 Following the D.C. police booking procedure (identification data