<Dd> 4 . The evidence must have been the product of interrogation . <Dl> <Dd> The evidence must have been the product of interrogation . A defendant who seeks to challenge the admissibility of a statement under Miranda must show that the statement was "prompted by police conduct that constituted' interrogation"'. A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda . In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words 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 from the suspect". Thus, a practice that the police "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect...amounts to interrogation". For example, confronting the suspect with incriminating evidence may be sufficiently evocative to amount to interrogation because the police are implicitly communicating a question: "How do you explain this?" On the other hand, "unforeseeable results of police words or actions" do not constitute interrogation . Under this definition, routine statements made during the administration of sobriety tests would not implicate Miranda . For example, a police officer arrests a person for impaired driving and takes him to the police station to administer an intoxilyzer test . While at the station the officer also asks the defendant to perform certain psycho - physical tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand or finger to nose test . It is standard practice to instruct the arrestee on how to perform the test and to demonstrate the test . (Note that the police will not tell the person that they have the right to refuse to perform the test, and the refusal cannot be used in evidence against them, nor can they be in any way punished for refusing to perform it, same as the police will not tell someone that they may refuse to perform a roadside sobriety test without penalty). An incriminating statement made by an arrestee during the instruction, "I couldn't do that even if I was sober", would not be the product of interrogation . Similarly, incriminating statements made in response to requests for consent to search a vehicle or other property are not considered to be the product of interrogation . </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> The evidence must have been the product of interrogation . A defendant who seeks to challenge the admissibility of a statement under Miranda must show that the statement was "prompted by police conduct that constituted' interrogation"'. A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda . In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words 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 from the suspect". Thus, a practice that the police "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect...amounts to interrogation". For example, confronting the suspect with incriminating evidence may be sufficiently evocative to amount to interrogation because the police are implicitly communicating a question: "How do you explain this?" On the other hand, "unforeseeable results of police words or actions" do not constitute interrogation . Under this definition, routine statements made during the administration of sobriety tests would not implicate Miranda . For example, a police officer arrests a person for impaired driving and takes him to the police station to administer an intoxilyzer test . While at the station the officer also asks the defendant to perform certain psycho - physical tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand or finger to nose test . It is standard practice to instruct the arrestee on how to perform the test and to demonstrate the test . (Note that the police will not tell the person that they have the right to refuse to perform the test, and the refusal cannot be used in evidence against them, nor can they be in any way punished for refusing to perform it, same as the police will not tell someone that they may refuse to perform a roadside sobriety test without penalty). An incriminating statement made by an arrestee during the instruction, "I couldn't do that even if I was sober", would not be the product of interrogation . Similarly, incriminating statements made in response to requests for consent to search a vehicle or other property are not considered to be the product of interrogation . </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> The evidence must have been the product of interrogation . A defendant who seeks to challenge the admissibility of a statement under Miranda must show that the statement was "prompted by police conduct that constituted' interrogation"'. A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda . In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words 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 from the suspect". Thus, a practice that the police "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect...amounts to interrogation". For example, confronting the suspect with incriminating evidence may be sufficiently evocative to amount to interrogation because the police are implicitly communicating a question: "How do you explain this?" On the other hand, "unforeseeable results of police words or actions" do not constitute interrogation . Under this definition, routine statements made during the administration of sobriety tests would not implicate Miranda . For example, a police officer arrests a person for impaired driving and takes him to the police station to administer an intoxilyzer test . While at the station the officer also asks the defendant to perform certain psycho - physical tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand or finger to nose test . It is standard practice to instruct the arrestee on how to perform the test and to demonstrate the test . (Note that the police will not tell the person that they have the right to refuse to perform the test, and the refusal cannot be used in evidence against them, nor can they be in any way punished for refusing to perform it, same as the police will not tell someone that they may refuse to perform a roadside sobriety test without penalty). An incriminating statement made by an arrestee during the instruction, "I couldn't do that even if I was sober", would not be the product of interrogation . Similarly, incriminating statements made in response to requests for consent to search a vehicle or other property are not considered to be the product of interrogation . </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> 5 . The interrogation must have been conducted by state - agents . <Dl> <Dd> To establish a violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, the defendant must show state action, so the interrogation must have been conducted by state - agents . If the interrogation was conducted by a person known by the suspect to be a law enforcement officer the state action requirement is unquestionably met . On the other hand, where a private citizen obtains a statement there is no state action regardless of the custodial circumstances surrounding the statement . A confession obtained through the interrogation by an undercover police officer or a paid informant does not violate Miranda because there is no coercion, no police dominated atmosphere if the suspect does not know that they are being questioned by the police . Private security guards and "private" police present special problems . They are generally not regarded as state - agents . However, an interrogation conducted by a police officer moonlighting as a security guard may well trigger Miranda's safeguards since an officer is considered to be "on duty" at all times . </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl>

The reason volunteered statements made by an arrestee are not subject to miranda is because they
find me the text answering this question