In a bank robbery investigation, police stop a man on reasonable suspicion, frisk his outer clothing, and he confesses without being Mirandized. Should the confession be suppressed?

• A. Yes, because Miranda warnings are always required in custodial interrogations.
• B. No, because there was a Fourth Amendment violation.
• C. No, because there was neither a Fourth Amendment violation nor a Miranda violation.
• D. Yes, because Miranda warnings are required for all police interrogations.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is in custody and subjected to interrogation, and a stop-and-frisk under Terry is a noncustodial investigation. Here, the police stop the man on reasonable suspicion and perform a limited frisk for weapons in the moment of the stop. That kind of detention is temporary and nonformal, and questions asked during such a stop are allowed without Miranda warnings. The confession, given during this noncustodial encounter, is admissible as long as it was voluntary.

There was no Fourth Amendment violation here because a stop based on reasonable suspicion, along with a permissible frisk, is allowed to advance the investigation. Since there was no custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, the absence of warnings does not render the confession involuntary. Therefore, the confession should not be suppressed.

The other choices would be mistaken because they treat Miranda as always mandatory in custodial interrogations or assume a Fourth Amendment violation from the stop, neither of which fits the Terry stop scenario described.