Abstract

In Colorado v. Spring, the Supreme Court held that a suspect's awareness of the subject matter under investigation prior to his custodial interrogation is irrelevant in determining whether he effectively waived his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court ruled that the police are not required to inform the suspect of the charges against him as a condition precedent to an effective waiver and need not redeliver Miranda warnings to the suspect when the subject matter of a custodial interrogation changes. Continued controversy surrounding the admissibility of confessions in a criminal trial, particularly since the Miranda decision, has fueled debate concerning the wisdom of the Colorado v. Spring decision.

After examining the impact of Colorado v. Spring on confession law, this Note will assess the legitimacy of the Court's rationale in Spring. It will suggest that this rationale fails to comport with the basic propositions underpinning the Court's decision in Miranda and will conclude that, in light of Spring, additional procedural safeguards beyond the Miranda warnings are warranted. A requirement that suspects be aware of the charges against them and the possible subject matter of custodial interrogation before they waive their constitutional rights is essential to a "voluntary, knowing and intelligent" waiver. If police deprive suspects of this information, a free and informed exercise or waiver of their constitutional rights is impossible.

How to Cite