Which case holds that Miranda does not apply unless the defendant is being interrogated?

Which case holds that Miranda does not apply unless the defendant is being interrogated?

• A. Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980
• B. Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984
• C. Harris v. New York, 1971
• D. Dickerson v. United States, 2000

Answer: (A)

Miranda warnings kick in only when the suspect is in custody and being interrogated. Rhode Island v. Innis clarifies what counts as interrogation by introducing the idea of the “functional equivalent” of interrogation. That means not just direct questioning, but police actions or words that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The case shows that if the police have not engaged in interrogation—no questioning or actions aimed at provoking a response—Miranda does not apply. So this case is the key reference for understanding the boundary: warnings are triggered by interrogation (or its functional equivalent), not by mere police presence or non-targeted conduct.

Miranda warnings kick in only when the suspect is in custody and being interrogated. Rhode Island v. Innis clarifies what counts as interrogation by introducing the idea of the “functional equivalent” of interrogation. That means not just direct questioning, but police actions or words that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The case shows that if the police have not engaged in interrogation—no questioning or actions aimed at provoking a response—Miranda does not apply. So this case is the key reference for understanding the boundary: warnings are triggered by interrogation (or its functional equivalent), not by mere police presence or non-targeted conduct.