Last week, middle and high school students across the city had the opportunity to participate in the 2016 Law Day program.

Law Day connects local attorneys, judges, and law enforcement agents with students in order to give them an inside look at various aspects of the law. The 2016 program was titled “Miranda: More than Words,” and it explored the Miranda Rights, now in their 50th year, why they exist, how they are used, and what each one means.

At Park View Middle School, concurrent programs were running both in the library and in the school auditorium throughout the day. In the school library that morning, Thomas Bender Esq. and the Hon. Alan. R. Goulart, Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal judge, were joined by Officer Sal Sanchez of the Cranston Police Department.

Bender and Goulart gave the students an in-depth look at the Miranda Rights and how they came to be, connecting them to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, while Sanchez was able to provide an insider’s perspective to the local policies and procedures that are used when arresting and interrogating a suspect prior to a case going to court.

“The U.S. Constitution is written by the people,” said Bender, explaining just how important it is when a law is amended. “It can’t just be changed by the government, and the individual rights within it can’t be taken away. It’s a document to protect the people. To change it or amend it is not an easy thing, and it doesn’t just happen overnight. That’s why it’s only been done a few times in 200 years.”

Bender discussed the landmark cases of Gideon v. Wainwright case of 1963 and the Miranda v. Arizona case of 1966, which further clarified individual rights when it comes to taking a citizen into custody and interrogating them.

“In Gideon v. Wainwright, it’s important to know that the law didn’t provide for a court-appointed attorney at that time. Gideon could not afford one of his own. He might have been innocent, but he didn’t have the ability to prove it,” Bender said. “While he was in prison, Gideon wrote a hand-written petition and appealed his case. You have to know that thousands and thousands of petitions are sent in every year, and they are most often done by lawyers. This was just a hand-written petition he wrote from prison, and it was voted 9-0 that his rights had been violated.”

Bender explained that prior to the Miranda v. Arizona case, the courts were worried about the increasing number of stories that were coming to light of police interrogations which involved physical violence against the person in custody, or the psychological coercion that often took place in order to get a statement of confession from a person in custody, which was then used in court against them.

“It was found that a high number of people who had admitted to committing crimes hadn’t actually committed them, but had admitted to them in order to stop the psychological coercion. Now, four warnings must be given,” Bender said. “In order for a police or prosecutor to use a statement in court, they must show that the Miranda warnings were given and that the questions have been voluntarily answered.”

Goulart emphasized that the vote in the Miranda case was 5-4.

“If one person had gone the other way in that decision, we wouldn’t have the Miranda Rights,” he said.

Goulart spoke briefly of the minority opinion in that case, and why those who voted against it did so.

“They wrote of their concern with the new rules in place, worrying that people would stop talking altogether, and would not admit to their crime at all,” he said.

When asked about typical interrogation procedures in Cranston, Sanchez stated that not only are the Miranda Rights given, as is required by law, but that felony interrogations are also videotaped as part of the department’s standard procedures.

Both Bender and Goulart emphasized to the students that the Miranda Rights only applied to a person who was in police custody and being interrogated. They cited several real life situations where such rights do not apply, such as a scenario where drugs are found in a school building and a principal is questioning a student.

“The principal doesn’t have the ability to arrest you or interrogate you,” Goulart said. “Therefore, the Miranda Rights don’t apply here.”

It was also noted that although Miranda was given a new trial, and his statement was not used in the new trial, he was still convicted.

“They were able to use other evidence the second time around to convict him,” Bender said. “Just because they were unable to use the confession doesn’t mean that there wasn’t other evidence which was admissible in court.”

Types of evidence other than statements of confession were discussed with the students. They included DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, photos, and video.

Sanchez emphasized the validity of social media evidence and the fact that it can be used in court. Bender agreed.

“Unless there was a reasonable expectation that a conversation on social media was to be kept private, it is totally admissible in court,” he said.

Goulart warned the students that nothing on the Internet is private, and that everything can be used against them in a court of law.

“It’s not private if it’s been shared with someone else, and when you send something out over the Internet, it is absolutely admissible,” he said. “I know of a recent case where a Facebook photo of a defendant was found and its presence led to a much heavier sentence for him. Even photos which have been deleted can be recovered and can be used in court.”

Bender spoke of the widespread disconnect and lack of understanding when it comes to the Internet and the law, and Sanchez noted the importance of having a better understanding of the impact one’s digital footprint can have on their lives.

“I will leave you with this one final thought,” Sanchez said. “Just as your fingerprint is unique to you, your digital fingerprint is also unique. You can be tracked right down to where and when something was posted.”