July 4, 2013 • 29 mins
Back in 1966, the Supreme Court decided that suspects in criminal cases had the right to be reminded that they didn't have to talk to the fuzz if they didn't want to, as stated in the 5th amendment. Since that ruling, scores of other cases have shaped and defined the ruling that created a staple of police procedural dramas.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know from House Stuff Works
dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
and there's Charles W Chuck Bryant, and um this stuff
you should Know. Jerry just told us right before she
(00:22):
pressed her cord, don't forget to be clever. What is
that about. I don't know, man, I pressure. I'm a
little thrown off right now. Well, I think maybe because
you said Miranda rights were named after the Sex in
the City character. Is that what you're talking about. It
was like forty five minutes ago. It's a call back.
(00:43):
So I guess that was clever in Cherry's book. That's
the thing. Like, I didn't even consider that clever, you know,
juvenile maybe so Miranda from Sex in the City. So
what was your response to that one. I don't remember
what I said. I thought it was really clever. We'll
just skip over that. You said you have the right
(01:04):
to remain fabulous. Oh yeah, that's right. So that's the
recap of a conversation we had a little while ago. Everybody, well,
people always say that I want to know what happens
behind the scenes. Just tomfoolery. There you go, Chuck, I
know that. Uh, you and I have both been arrested
many times and we've done some time in the stir
and all that, so we know what Miranda rights are. True.
(01:28):
But the average person also knows what Miranda rights are
because they're so ubiquitous on every cop show, every lawyer show,
every every show. I think they show up on like
e er and still and it's on, right, I have
no idea. I'm like season I have no idea. I
don't think it is and I had a pretty good
long run, sure, But Miranda rights are just this thing
(01:49):
that have become totally ingrained in our culture. We can
all say it. Well, let's say it together. You have
the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and
will be used against you in a corps of law.
But hey, buddy, don't fret. You have the right to
an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will
be appointed to you. Right and then over time, apparently
some agencies have added and if you waive these rights,
(02:12):
you can invoke them at any time. Yeah, I hadn't
heard that one. They know, they hadn't made it to
TV yet, really, right, you know, it just goes like
I'm not even gonna tell you that. Yeah, Castle, he's
all business. Yeah. Is he a cop though? And I
think he's a private investigator, although I'm not sure. So
he wouldn't have to mirandize anybody, but he's Castle, so
(02:32):
he does. I've never seen it. I love Nathan Fillin though,
Oh who doesn't. Yeah, he's a nice guy. But this
this idea that Miranda rights are. You know, they're everywhere
and everybody knows them and knows what they You know
that they exist. But the first of all, the case
behind him, I think is probably unknown. And then secondly,
like what they're designed to do, really, the real nuts
(02:55):
and bolts of it, I hadn't. It hadn't really occurred
to me, even though it's pretty self ever once you
think about it. Yeah, and it seems really straightforward, but
it can't give a little tricky uh, which will discuss
how that happens. Well. So the idea of the Miranda
rights is fairly recent. Um goes back to nineteen sixty six,
the case called Miranda versus Arizona. The Arizona Yeah, yeah,
(03:23):
which is like the legal profession came and be bothered
to include the s when they abbreviate versus you know.
And we should also point out that, UM, it wasn't
just this one case. Uh, it was Miranda via Arizona
gets all the press because the name Miranda, but it
was actually four cases that they consolidated. UM. But we
want to give Vignera v. New York West over the
(03:45):
United States and California v. Stewart their due as being
part of this thing. And they basically all the cases
were similar in that the UM there were confessions after interrogations, UM,
and those confessions were used against these various people. Right.
But Miranda though the lawyers of these UM, well not
(04:09):
just us, I mean everybody does. It's called it's the
Miranda case, the Miranda laws, the Miranda rights, your Miranda
I is, you know, UM. But the the the whole
point behind these in all of the cases, the that
the complainants had was that they're the people who committed
these crimes and made these confessions and we're later convicted
(04:32):
for him. We're not aware that they didn't have to
talk to the police. And this is actually the Miranda
case goes back to nineteen six But the American right
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to
refrain from self incrimination. That goes back to you said,
the Fifth Amendment basically says that you don't have to
(04:56):
tell on yourself. The cops can't make you talk, is
what that. Yeah, but until nineteen sixty six they I
guess you just needed to be you know, up on
your constitutional knowledge. And then in nineteen sixty six they
eventually will get to the case. They said, you know,
maybe we should start telling people this when we arrest them. Um.
(05:17):
So let's go back in time to uh in Phoenix, Arizona, UM,
the cops picked up Ernesto Miranda for questioning and a kidnapping.
In rate case, his car was spotted nearer the scene
of the crime. He was called in. When he got there,
he was like, I didn't do this. Man like he
(05:39):
was completely cooperative. He's like, I didn't do any of this.
Two hours later, an interrogation they had he was not
identified in a lineup, but the cops said, the girl
identifies you in the lineup, and he went, oh, well,
I guess I think his direct quote was well, I
guess I ought to tell you about it then, And
so the cops lied to him. And this is a
(06:00):
clear case of you know, like not doing things the
right way. Well, this no, the Supreme Court is upheld
the use of deception by police in interrogation. They can
lie their their tails off to you, but not if
you're not Miranda. I. That was the point is he
didn't know that he could just be quiet and not
say anything, so he just volunteered the information, signed a
(06:22):
written confession. And that's the whole point. And that's what
the justices in the Supreme Court who heard the Miranda
case and all the other cases that combined to make
it um we're getting at was that you, when you
are being interrogated by the place you're in their custody,
they are allowed to use deception. They are allowed to
um use all sorts of tactics to core coerce. You
(06:43):
two talk, But if you're not aware that you don't
have to talk, then what you're saying amounts to an
involuntary confession and hence shouldn't be able to be used
against you because you have a constitutional right against self incrimination.
If you're in for that, you have that right. Then
you are making the decision to go ahead and confess
(07:05):
against yourself, and you're waiving that right. Yes, and that
can be used in court exactly, so they give you
the option essentially. So this is what the whole case
was about. UM. In nineteen sixty six, like we said,
the Supreme Court heard this case and ruled he was
convicted we should say, based on that confession and sentenced
to thirty years I believe, and that the Supreme Court
(07:27):
case was part of an appeal from that three years
later they heard this case. Yeah. And apparently, like the
the other three people probably represent even more than just
those four cases total. Usually when the Supreme Court here's something,
there's a lot of it going on in the courts. UM.
And they said in a five to four decision, you
know what, the the suspect has to be read his rights,
(07:51):
which will now call his Miranda rights. Yeah. And they
specifically said, UM, prosecution may not use statements stemming from
custodial and terror ation of the defendant unless it demonstrates
the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self incrimination. But the key there is custodial interrogation
(08:13):
and established a couple of things. Is one, you can't
self incriminate from the moment you're in custody, um, so
like it's not like you're on trial or something, and
that any confession is uh involuntary basically. And again the
reason that they're differentiating between in custody and not in
custody is because once you're in custody, the cops can
(08:34):
do things like lie to you or something like that.
That's right, um. And in custody is the three key
words taken into custody or is where all the gray
area has been since then and still is today. Yeah,
because they were pretty clear in their ruling, like, yeah,
this person has to be read their rights and how
(08:55):
let's even print some cards for police officers to carry
around with them so they can read off of card
if they have to. Yeah, and we should point out
that Miranda, actually they retried him without his confession and
his girlfriend, um said he confessed to me, so that
was used in court. So he was found guilty again
since the twenty to thirty years again, paroled after five
(09:16):
years and then sold those little Miranda cards with his
autograph on him for a while for like a buck fifty.
And then he was stabbed to death in a bar
fight in Yes, and the suspect who stabbed him was
read his Miranda rights and so he never talked and
he walked. Really yeah, oh my god. The irony. It's
definitely irony and like the truest form of the word.
(09:41):
That's right, man. So custodial interrogation is is one of
the keys here. Um, in custody is where it gets
a little hinky. Like if you're in the back of
a police car and you get your handcuffs on, then
you're in custody. That's pretty straightforward. Or even if you
don't have handcuffs on, if you're if the cops lock
you in the car and you're you're are it's understood
(10:04):
by you that you're not allowed to get out. You're
in police custody. Right. The official definition of custody and
the Mirand decision is quote unquote denial of complete freedom
of action. Right, But that's open to interpretation. You know
it is because, um, you know, if you're being if
you're handcuffed and you're putting the back of a locked
police car, you're obviously denied freedom of action. You obviously
(10:26):
have to be mirandized. Right. You can bang your head
on the little clear glass in front of you, right,
What were you saying in police chases like the the
you can defecate or urinate or whatever, do whatever you want,
but that is not freedom of action. Um. It's been
brought up though, that because of the um the legal
(10:47):
authority that cops represent with their uniforms and their outwardly
worn guns and you know, tasers, all that stuff, their
mirroade sunglasses, that they have some sort of um, they
project a sort of uh, just talking to a cop,
a person might feel detained. Yeah, it's an implied UM. Yeah,
(11:07):
I think it's like an implied detention. Like the cop
came to my front door and said he had some
questions for me regarding a crime. I don't think I
would feel even though it's within my right, I don't
think I would feel like I was able to say, no, actually,
I'm gonna go to the grocery store right now, right exactly,
and just walk past him and get in my car,
or even I'm gonna have to ask you guys to leave,
(11:29):
which again you said it is your right to do.
They haven't placed you into custody, but you you don't
have to be Mirandi's in this situation because you can
tell the cops to leave if you are in an
interrogation room and you tell the cops to leave, they're
not gonna listen to you. If they're on your front doorstep,
then you tell them to leave. They are supposed to
listen to you, and because of that, you're not being
(11:51):
you You have freedom of movement. You can go back
in your house, you can go to the grocery store.
You can tell the cops to leave. So even though
the perception might be that you are being detained by
the cops just by their very presence, and you don't
feel like you can tell them to leave, the law
isn't this. This law isn't designed to let you be slippery, right,
Like a traffic stop, for instance, is a is a
(12:11):
kind of a not weird. But if you get stopped
by a cop and you'd say, um, you know, I've
got five pounds of weed in my trunk, by the way,
mr officer, you caught me, that can be used in
court because that is a non custodial situation, right, which
is weird. Though I didn't realize that a traffic stop
is considered non custodials. That means you can just drive off,
(12:36):
because then if you can't, then that's a custodial situation.
So does that mean that you can drive off legally
or does that mean that the courts just it is
a gray area that the court of that means you're fleeing.
That means you're evading, evading what arrest the traffic stop. Okay, well,
then that means you can't leave. You don't have freedom
(12:57):
of movement. Therefore that's a custodial situation and you should
have to be mirandized when you're pulled over. Well, hey,
you talked to the Supreme Court. My friend, I've been trying.
But I do have a question if there are any
um constitutional lawyers or any kind of lawyer really who
knows what they're talking about. Defense attorney. Um, I'm very
curious about that, Like, are you allowed legally to just
(13:20):
drive off once a cop pulls you over since it's
a non custodial situation. My answer is no. I would
imagine no too, because every time you do, they well,
because you have committed a crime and the in the
cop has pulled you over. Maybe uh, I don't know.
I mean that's where the language gets tricky. You're not
(13:40):
in custody, maybe you're temporary detained. A bit of there's
some specific language that allows for this. And I would
never like argue this with a cop who pulled me over.
That's not what I'm getting a genuinely like, I'm genuinely curious.
If you can't drive off, then how is it a
non constidial situation? That's my question. That's a good question, um.
(14:02):
But that shows the slippery slope in the gray area,
you know, right, And like you said, I mean if
you say, hey, I've got five pounds of weed in
my trunk and the cop never mirandized you, and then
after they says, well, you're under arrest, and then he
mirandizes you and you shut up. From that point on,
they can still use that initial exact confession because it
was non custodial. Uh. And here's the other thing. A
(14:22):
lot of people, well not a lot of people, some
folks may be confused by if you're not read your
miranda rights, then you just you get released or whatever.
Not true at all. That just means that they can't
use what you have said in court, and any ancillary uh,
incriminating evidence that came from that confession can't be used either, right,
(14:43):
Like if they arrest you and you say they tell
you you're placed under arrest, and then they're like, so, um,
we're going to get some tacos rather than here's what
we have to tell you about your Miranda rights. And
then you say, I've got a bunch of weed on me. Like,
they can't use that confession about the weed two against
(15:03):
you because you hadn't been mirandized. You've been told that
the cops wanted tacos. Yeah, I wonder what keeps someone
from voluntarily talking about evidence so it won't be Yeah, man,
we are Criminal Minds right here. I'm sure there's workarounds
for all this. We like Mandy Patinken and like the
(15:25):
rest of the cast right here at this table. No,
it Isn'tny in Criminal Minds. I don't know. He's in Homeland.
I watch that. He's also in The Prince's Pride. He's
in Nego Montoya Monday at Patinken. He was also the
alien cop in Alien Nation. A lot of people don't
know that, but Jimmy Cohn, you never saw Alien Nation.
(15:45):
That was that good. That was a great movie. It
always looked silly to me. I'll tell you what when
you're it is a great movie. Ye, Yeah, it was
nothing like I had, like a good plot and it
was like to live in Die in l a with
aliens right or enemy mine on Earth? Yeah, I never
saw that one. It was. It was just kind of
(16:06):
the same deal. It's like it's Lucas A Jr. In
an alien suit and Dennis Quaid, right, Uh, Randy Quid,
Dennis Quaid. It definitely wasn't Randy. It was Denis Quid.
I'm pretty sure, all right. So Miranda Rights the requisite
meandering tangent. Uh. So there's an important thing we haven't
covered yet, um, in regards to Miranda Rights, And it
(16:28):
was recently I got a lot of press with the
bombings in Boston, and that is the public safety exception. Um.
In the case of the the Boston bombing. What was
his name, Uh, Joe Car Sarnia. Okay, so Joe Car.
Joe Car did Joe Car. There's a lot of ways
(16:49):
to say it that are wrong. And then there's one
right one which I may have had in there. So
he is in the hospital. They everyone knows what happened.
You know that the bombings went off. The one brother
was killed, they called the other one, uh, and he
was wounded, and so he was in a hospital and
they had what they called an urgent public safety interview
in the hospital without reading him his rights. He's asking
(17:11):
for an attorney. They're like, you're not getting an attorney.
Why why don't you tell us what's going on? And
he did, Yeah, he did. He confessed the bombing. He
told them about um, possible other bombs. I think that's
how they found out that the apartment was possibly rigged
with explosives, or at very least there were explosives in
his apartment, his brother's apartment. UM. And they found all
(17:33):
this out by denying him his right to keep quiet. Yeah,
And a lot of people were saying, well, you guys
just blew the case. You guys, why didn't you mirandize him?
And it was because of this public safety exemption that
came about UM that the Supreme Court ruled on in Yeah,
New York v. Quarrels. Benjamin Quarrels was in custody at
(17:57):
a grocery store in nineteen eighty and rape victim had
identified him and the cop frisked him and said, hey,
you've got an empty gun holster. Here is there a
gun nearby? And he was like, yeah, it's right over there.
Cop went, got the gun unloaded. It obviously secured the scene,
and that became a court case because he was the
(18:19):
gun evidence was thrown out. An appellate court agreed, and
then later on the Supreme Court said, no, you know
what that's called. Uh, you know, securing the scene. That's
a public safety exception. You can't have a gun loaded
gun in there. You can't have bombs waiting to go
off potentially somewhere else. So forget the mirandizing. You need
to secure everything, right and um, once that, once that
(18:42):
threat to public safety is secured, then you have to
mirandize them. Yeah, in which the Boston case, he just
shut up after that, so too late. Yeah, exactly, the
feds had gotten all they wanted out of him, and
we're like, sure, whatever, And apparently a judge ordered the
FEDS to mirandize the guy after like two days of
this quiet questioning. I bet that was a pretty satisfying
reading of the rights at that point. I'm sure, you know,
(19:05):
because they knew they were covered. But I mean, this
is such a gestapo tactic too, Like we'll this question
you about everything we want for two days until the
judge ordered us to mirandi is that means that some
attorneys are gonna have to go through all two days
of that confession to pick out what at what point
the public safety exemption was basically exhausted. And I mean,
you can argue that any question that has to do
(19:26):
with possible future terrorist attacks is you know, preventing or
protecting public safety. Yeah, but it's just like, uh, I mean,
I don't know, it definitely skirts the spirit of the law.
I would think, Yeah, And I found an article written
by the guy who originally I think wrote the Quarrels verdict,
(19:49):
and he he was like, you know what, in the
case with the Boston bomber, you they shouldn't even done
that anyway, because it was so much evidence. They didn't
even need these confessions, and it wasn't the true spirit
of trying to secure public safety to find if there
was other explosives. But from that point on they were
like it was completely unnecessary because the guy was convicted
(20:10):
just from you know, the evidence was so strong that
they didn't even need that confession exactly. So like after
they found out about the bombs or whatever, whether their
word weren't bombs, then it seems to me like the
public safety exemption would have been exhausted and they would
have had to have mirandized him. It's a slippery slope.
But I mean, it's not like the CIA has to have,
you know, admissible evidence in court to go after all
(20:33):
the people that um Joe kar named, if he named
anybody or whatever he gave up, you know. So it's
just I don't know. Yeah, I'm coming to trust like
Obama's security policies like less and less. That's my opinion. No,
I get it. It's it's a it's a very fine
(20:55):
line between like, hey, this guy's a terrorist and get
that information or people still have their human rights right exactly.
And it's such a difficult thing to to swallow to
the concept that some little punk who him and his
brother blew people up in Boston and took people's lives
and legs and that they did this, that the concept
(21:17):
that they have any rights whatsoever is pretty unpalatable. But
we as a society have decided that, yeah, you do
have rights. If you're an American system, you have certain
rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights and and court interpretation of those rights. And
that's the law of the land, and um, I guess
(21:38):
to just routinely skirt around those whenever, whenever it's determined
to be called for by whoever is in charge and power.
That's that's equally impalatable. Impalatable to me because also, um,
you know, the courts judged a criminal suspect when you
invoke the public safety option, it's not that that person
(22:01):
doesn't have any rights, it's that the safety of the
public trump set person's constitutional rights right then, but just
for that narrow window of time, and then after that
it's exhausted. That's right. And this is not the first time.
It was just three years ago that the FEDS did
the same thing. They invoked the public safety exemption for
the Times Square bomber. Yeah, and he sang like a canary,
(22:24):
which is if they just did it to Joe Carson Naiev,
I don't think I would have a problem. But just
the fact that it popped up three years ago too,
that's starting an indicate a pattern to me. Yeah, terrorism,
I think is the key. Yeah, key agent there you know,
anything else, I'm done, then we're gonna get so much
(22:45):
mail for that one. Hey, buddy, you have the right
to remain fabulous thank you. That's my takeaway. Thank you.
If you want to learn more about being fabulous, you
can type that word into the search bart how stuff
works dot com. You can also type Miranda Rights m
I R A N D A Rights. Uh. And since
I said search bars somewhere in there, it's time for message,
(23:12):
and now it's time for listening to mail. Yeah. Before
listener mail, we have a quick shout out. And we
don't usually do this because we get inundated with requests
for shoutouts. Yeah, so every once in a a while they
at the right time exactly. This is an anniversary shout
out from Josh Underwood. Uh. He and his wife are
teachers in uh Robertson County, Kentucky, and they've listen to
(23:36):
our show incorporated in their classrooms and they are celebrating
their tenure anniversary. And uh, he said, if we could
say happy anniversary to Amanda, it would can't think of
anything that would make her smile more so on June fourteenth,
and he said, if it's late, and you know, don't
worry about it. So this is probably gonna be late,
but I hope you guys had a great anniversary. On
June fourteen, Happy tenth Josh and Amanda Underwood. Yeah, happy
(23:58):
anniversary you guys. Or I don't know if I'm and
it took your name whatever her name might be. Yeah,
so the real listener male speaking of taking names. Uh,
it's a good one and I'm gonna call it Royal
Tannon Bombs. Uh theory. Oh I like this already. Yeah,
it's one of my favorite movies, Losing a finger, you know,
boy chopping actor. Hi, guys, my wife Molly and I've
(24:21):
been listening for about three years. We both love it. Um.
I've always wanted to email you, but I didn't have
a reason, and I didn't want to sound like a
twelve year old girl talking to in sync or something.
Those guys pretty out of touch. Yeah, I guess it's
nineteen four. I wanted to say something interesting. So here
are two interesting things. One, my name is Josh Bryant.
Pretty interesting. It's like the two of us together, right.
(24:44):
I appreciate you taking my name. Uh. Number two he
actually had three things, but one wasn't so interesting. Uh.
Number two is I watched Wes Anderson Toroyal Tannonbombs was amazing,
how different and unique all the characters were and how
well they all worked together as a family. After reading
other theories about the movie, I think the one I
love most is that every character represents a different stage
of grief. So Denial I collect fan theories. Oh I
(25:09):
love it. That is a great one. Have you seen
Room two thirty seven? Yet no of you know I'm
dying to them. They didn't release it in Atlanta. Um alright.
So Denial is Margot Tannembaum, her unknown smoking habit, numerous marriages,
secret crush on Richie, totally denial, anger, Chaz Tannebaum, need
I say more? Pretty much throughout the whole movie, he's
(25:29):
angry and full of resentment, bargaining royal Tannebaum himself. He
lies to get out of bad gambles and gambles to
cover up bad lies. This is like pretty good and
he didn't make this up. He got off then after
that's still good. But Joshua Bryant, you getting no credit.
It's like that kid who stole that high ku from
a T shirt and um depression. Richie Tannebomb again very obvious,
(25:52):
sees when he tries to see when he tries to
commit suicide. Great scene, uh An acceptance is ethylene Tannenbaum.
Her is more subtle. Her acceptance is seen when she
accepts Mr. Sherman's marriage proposal. It's a little thing there.
It's also seen when she finally moves on from her
own marriage and accepts her new life with her new husband.
(26:13):
So that's sort of that's the most tenuous. But that's
what we think, and I think that's pretty good. I
love fan theories, like you, Yeah, five stages of greed.
I doubt if that's the case. Well, that's what makes
fan theories so great. If like, if you just unlocked
the director's secret, sure, then it's done. It's fine. Not
(26:33):
you figured it out. One of the great things about
fan theories is that it rivals what the director was
trying to do or the writer was trying to do. Yeah,
it was like English class. Remember back in English class,
it was always and I had a problem with it
back then, but now I love it. I would always
be like, well, just teachers just interpreting this, like who
knows what the author meant? Oh yeah, but that's kind
of the point. Now in my old age, I realized, Yeah,
(26:54):
I remember feeling my brain unfurl and start to get like, yeah,
there are ccific interpretations of things and that that that
kind of fit within a framework, but still are it's
pretty wide. Yeah, but great, it's nice, pretty cool fan theories.
I'm writing a blog post on him right now. I'm
collecting him. Oh yeah, so that's from Joshua Bryant. Joshua,
I guess is a result of some weird stuff you
(27:16):
should know in breeding. But yeah, he's an experiment, that's right. Yeah, Dish,
let us know where you are right now. He escape Yeah, uh,
if you escape from our lab, we want to hear
about it, especially if you have some cool fan theory. Man,
send us fan theories, like good ones. I mean like
good ones, not like uh it's stupid ones. Yeah. I've
(27:39):
been on feral children lately. What just that's been my
obsession lately, reading about feral children. I might trying to
write a think virtue fan theory. Feral children. What does
that have to do with fan theories? Nothing, That's just
that's my obsession. Yours has been fan theories. Oh, I
got you, I got I've just been obsessed with feral children. Yeah,
because there have been like actual ones in there, yeah,
like um, the Emerald Forest, the many cases. So Okay.
(28:04):
If you have a good fan theory and or a
good barrel children's story, we want to hear about it.
You can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.
You can join us on Stuff you Should Know, which
is prior to that slash, prior to that Facebook dot
com uh, you can send us an email the Stuff podcast,
that Discovery dot com, and you can join us at
(28:24):
our home on the web Stuff you Should Know dot
com for more on this and thousands of other topics.
Does it House stuff works dot com. Jack thards has
quickly become the online shopping destination for guys. Here's why
(28:47):
everything on the site is up off as a listener
of Stuff you Should Know, you can skip the membership
waitlist and get instant access at jack threads dot com,
slash k and o W stuff That's Jack threads dot com,
slash no Stuff
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know from House Stuff Works
dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
and there's Charles W Chuck Bryant, and um this stuff
you should Know. Jerry just told us right before she
(00:22):
pressed her cord, don't forget to be clever. What is
that about. I don't know, man, I pressure. I'm a
little thrown off right now. Well, I think maybe because
you said Miranda rights were named after the Sex in
the City character. Is that what you're talking about. It
was like forty five minutes ago. It's a call back.
(00:43):
So I guess that was clever in Cherry's book. That's
the thing. Like, I didn't even consider that clever, you know,
juvenile maybe so Miranda from Sex in the City. So
what was your response to that one. I don't remember
what I said. I thought it was really clever. We'll
just skip over that. You said you have the right
(01:04):
to remain fabulous. Oh yeah, that's right. So that's the
recap of a conversation we had a little while ago. Everybody, well,
people always say that I want to know what happens
behind the scenes. Just tomfoolery. There you go, Chuck, I
know that. Uh, you and I have both been arrested
many times and we've done some time in the stir
and all that, so we know what Miranda rights are. True.
(01:28):
But the average person also knows what Miranda rights are
because they're so ubiquitous on every cop show, every lawyer show,
every every show. I think they show up on like
e er and still and it's on, right, I have
no idea. I'm like season I have no idea. I
don't think it is and I had a pretty good
long run, sure, But Miranda rights are just this thing
(01:49):
that have become totally ingrained in our culture. We can
all say it. Well, let's say it together. You have
the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and
will be used against you in a corps of law.
But hey, buddy, don't fret. You have the right to
an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will
be appointed to you. Right and then over time, apparently
some agencies have added and if you waive these rights,
(02:12):
you can invoke them at any time. Yeah, I hadn't
heard that one. They know, they hadn't made it to
TV yet, really, right, you know, it just goes like
I'm not even gonna tell you that. Yeah, Castle, he's
all business. Yeah. Is he a cop though? And I
think he's a private investigator, although I'm not sure. So
he wouldn't have to mirandize anybody, but he's Castle, so
(02:32):
he does. I've never seen it. I love Nathan Fillin though,
Oh who doesn't. Yeah, he's a nice guy. But this
this idea that Miranda rights are. You know, they're everywhere
and everybody knows them and knows what they You know
that they exist. But the first of all, the case
behind him, I think is probably unknown. And then secondly,
like what they're designed to do, really, the real nuts
(02:55):
and bolts of it, I hadn't. It hadn't really occurred
to me, even though it's pretty self ever once you
think about it. Yeah, and it seems really straightforward, but
it can't give a little tricky uh, which will discuss
how that happens. Well. So the idea of the Miranda
rights is fairly recent. Um goes back to nineteen sixty six,
the case called Miranda versus Arizona. The Arizona Yeah, yeah,
(03:23):
which is like the legal profession came and be bothered
to include the s when they abbreviate versus you know.
And we should also point out that, UM, it wasn't
just this one case. Uh, it was Miranda via Arizona
gets all the press because the name Miranda, but it
was actually four cases that they consolidated. UM. But we
want to give Vignera v. New York West over the
(03:45):
United States and California v. Stewart their due as being
part of this thing. And they basically all the cases
were similar in that the UM there were confessions after interrogations, UM,
and those confessions were used against these various people. Right.
But Miranda though the lawyers of these UM, well not
(04:09):
just us, I mean everybody does. It's called it's the
Miranda case, the Miranda laws, the Miranda rights, your Miranda
I is, you know, UM. But the the the whole
point behind these in all of the cases, the that
the complainants had was that they're the people who committed
these crimes and made these confessions and we're later convicted
(04:32):
for him. We're not aware that they didn't have to
talk to the police. And this is actually the Miranda
case goes back to nineteen six But the American right
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to
refrain from self incrimination. That goes back to you said,
the Fifth Amendment basically says that you don't have to
(04:56):
tell on yourself. The cops can't make you talk, is
what that. Yeah, but until nineteen sixty six they I
guess you just needed to be you know, up on
your constitutional knowledge. And then in nineteen sixty six they
eventually will get to the case. They said, you know,
maybe we should start telling people this when we arrest them. Um.
(05:17):
So let's go back in time to uh in Phoenix, Arizona, UM,
the cops picked up Ernesto Miranda for questioning and a kidnapping.
In rate case, his car was spotted nearer the scene
of the crime. He was called in. When he got there,
he was like, I didn't do this. Man like he
(05:39):
was completely cooperative. He's like, I didn't do any of this.
Two hours later, an interrogation they had he was not
identified in a lineup, but the cops said, the girl
identifies you in the lineup, and he went, oh, well,
I guess I think his direct quote was well, I
guess I ought to tell you about it then, And
so the cops lied to him. And this is a
(06:00):
clear case of you know, like not doing things the
right way. Well, this no, the Supreme Court is upheld
the use of deception by police in interrogation. They can
lie their their tails off to you, but not if
you're not Miranda. I. That was the point is he
didn't know that he could just be quiet and not
say anything, so he just volunteered the information, signed a
(06:22):
written confession. And that's the whole point. And that's what
the justices in the Supreme Court who heard the Miranda
case and all the other cases that combined to make
it um we're getting at was that you, when you
are being interrogated by the place you're in their custody,
they are allowed to use deception. They are allowed to
um use all sorts of tactics to core coerce. You
(06:43):
two talk, But if you're not aware that you don't
have to talk, then what you're saying amounts to an
involuntary confession and hence shouldn't be able to be used
against you because you have a constitutional right against self incrimination.
If you're in for that, you have that right. Then
you are making the decision to go ahead and confess
(07:05):
against yourself, and you're waiving that right. Yes, and that
can be used in court exactly, so they give you
the option essentially. So this is what the whole case
was about. UM. In nineteen sixty six, like we said,
the Supreme Court heard this case and ruled he was
convicted we should say, based on that confession and sentenced
to thirty years I believe, and that the Supreme Court
(07:27):
case was part of an appeal from that three years
later they heard this case. Yeah. And apparently, like the
the other three people probably represent even more than just
those four cases total. Usually when the Supreme Court here's something,
there's a lot of it going on in the courts. UM.
And they said in a five to four decision, you
know what, the the suspect has to be read his rights,
(07:51):
which will now call his Miranda rights. Yeah. And they
specifically said, UM, prosecution may not use statements stemming from
custodial and terror ation of the defendant unless it demonstrates
the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self incrimination. But the key there is custodial interrogation
(08:13):
and established a couple of things. Is one, you can't
self incriminate from the moment you're in custody, um, so
like it's not like you're on trial or something, and
that any confession is uh involuntary basically. And again the
reason that they're differentiating between in custody and not in
custody is because once you're in custody, the cops can
(08:34):
do things like lie to you or something like that.
That's right, um. And in custody is the three key
words taken into custody or is where all the gray
area has been since then and still is today. Yeah,
because they were pretty clear in their ruling, like, yeah,
this person has to be read their rights and how
(08:55):
let's even print some cards for police officers to carry
around with them so they can read off of card
if they have to. Yeah, and we should point out
that Miranda, actually they retried him without his confession and
his girlfriend, um said he confessed to me, so that
was used in court. So he was found guilty again
since the twenty to thirty years again, paroled after five
(09:16):
years and then sold those little Miranda cards with his
autograph on him for a while for like a buck fifty.
And then he was stabbed to death in a bar
fight in Yes, and the suspect who stabbed him was
read his Miranda rights and so he never talked and
he walked. Really yeah, oh my god. The irony. It's
definitely irony and like the truest form of the word.
(09:41):
That's right, man. So custodial interrogation is is one of
the keys here. Um, in custody is where it gets
a little hinky. Like if you're in the back of
a police car and you get your handcuffs on, then
you're in custody. That's pretty straightforward. Or even if you
don't have handcuffs on, if you're if the cops lock
you in the car and you're you're are it's understood
(10:04):
by you that you're not allowed to get out. You're
in police custody. Right. The official definition of custody and
the Mirand decision is quote unquote denial of complete freedom
of action. Right, But that's open to interpretation. You know
it is because, um, you know, if you're being if
you're handcuffed and you're putting the back of a locked
police car, you're obviously denied freedom of action. You obviously
(10:26):
have to be mirandized. Right. You can bang your head
on the little clear glass in front of you, right,
What were you saying in police chases like the the
you can defecate or urinate or whatever, do whatever you want,
but that is not freedom of action. Um. It's been
brought up though, that because of the um the legal
(10:47):
authority that cops represent with their uniforms and their outwardly
worn guns and you know, tasers, all that stuff, their
mirroade sunglasses, that they have some sort of um, they
project a sort of uh, just talking to a cop,
a person might feel detained. Yeah, it's an implied UM. Yeah,
(11:07):
I think it's like an implied detention. Like the cop
came to my front door and said he had some
questions for me regarding a crime. I don't think I
would feel even though it's within my right, I don't
think I would feel like I was able to say, no, actually,
I'm gonna go to the grocery store right now, right exactly,
and just walk past him and get in my car,
or even I'm gonna have to ask you guys to leave,
(11:29):
which again you said it is your right to do.
They haven't placed you into custody, but you you don't
have to be Mirandi's in this situation because you can
tell the cops to leave if you are in an
interrogation room and you tell the cops to leave, they're
not gonna listen to you. If they're on your front doorstep,
then you tell them to leave. They are supposed to
listen to you, and because of that, you're not being
(11:51):
you You have freedom of movement. You can go back
in your house, you can go to the grocery store.
You can tell the cops to leave. So even though
the perception might be that you are being detained by
the cops just by their very presence, and you don't
feel like you can tell them to leave, the law
isn't this. This law isn't designed to let you be slippery, right,
Like a traffic stop, for instance, is a is a
(12:11):
kind of a not weird. But if you get stopped
by a cop and you'd say, um, you know, I've
got five pounds of weed in my trunk, by the way,
mr officer, you caught me, that can be used in
court because that is a non custodial situation, right, which
is weird. Though I didn't realize that a traffic stop
is considered non custodials. That means you can just drive off,
(12:36):
because then if you can't, then that's a custodial situation.
So does that mean that you can drive off legally
or does that mean that the courts just it is
a gray area that the court of that means you're fleeing.
That means you're evading, evading what arrest the traffic stop. Okay, well,
then that means you can't leave. You don't have freedom
(12:57):
of movement. Therefore that's a custodial situation and you should
have to be mirandized when you're pulled over. Well, hey,
you talked to the Supreme Court. My friend, I've been trying.
But I do have a question if there are any
um constitutional lawyers or any kind of lawyer really who
knows what they're talking about. Defense attorney. Um, I'm very
curious about that, Like, are you allowed legally to just
(13:20):
drive off once a cop pulls you over since it's
a non custodial situation. My answer is no. I would
imagine no too, because every time you do, they well,
because you have committed a crime and the in the
cop has pulled you over. Maybe uh, I don't know.
I mean that's where the language gets tricky. You're not
(13:40):
in custody, maybe you're temporary detained. A bit of there's
some specific language that allows for this. And I would
never like argue this with a cop who pulled me over.
That's not what I'm getting a genuinely like, I'm genuinely curious.
If you can't drive off, then how is it a
non constidial situation? That's my question. That's a good question, um.
(14:02):
But that shows the slippery slope in the gray area,
you know, right, And like you said, I mean if
you say, hey, I've got five pounds of weed in
my trunk and the cop never mirandized you, and then
after they says, well, you're under arrest, and then he
mirandizes you and you shut up. From that point on,
they can still use that initial exact confession because it
was non custodial. Uh. And here's the other thing. A
(14:22):
lot of people, well not a lot of people, some
folks may be confused by if you're not read your
miranda rights, then you just you get released or whatever.
Not true at all. That just means that they can't
use what you have said in court, and any ancillary uh,
incriminating evidence that came from that confession can't be used either, right,
(14:43):
Like if they arrest you and you say they tell
you you're placed under arrest, and then they're like, so, um,
we're going to get some tacos rather than here's what
we have to tell you about your Miranda rights. And
then you say, I've got a bunch of weed on me. Like,
they can't use that confession about the weed two against
(15:03):
you because you hadn't been mirandized. You've been told that
the cops wanted tacos. Yeah, I wonder what keeps someone
from voluntarily talking about evidence so it won't be Yeah, man,
we are Criminal Minds right here. I'm sure there's workarounds
for all this. We like Mandy Patinken and like the
(15:25):
rest of the cast right here at this table. No,
it Isn'tny in Criminal Minds. I don't know. He's in Homeland.
I watch that. He's also in The Prince's Pride. He's
in Nego Montoya Monday at Patinken. He was also the
alien cop in Alien Nation. A lot of people don't
know that, but Jimmy Cohn, you never saw Alien Nation.
(15:45):
That was that good. That was a great movie. It
always looked silly to me. I'll tell you what when
you're it is a great movie. Ye, Yeah, it was
nothing like I had, like a good plot and it
was like to live in Die in l a with
aliens right or enemy mine on Earth? Yeah, I never
saw that one. It was. It was just kind of
(16:06):
the same deal. It's like it's Lucas A Jr. In
an alien suit and Dennis Quaid, right, Uh, Randy Quid,
Dennis Quaid. It definitely wasn't Randy. It was Denis Quid.
I'm pretty sure, all right. So Miranda Rights the requisite
meandering tangent. Uh. So there's an important thing we haven't
covered yet, um, in regards to Miranda Rights, And it
(16:28):
was recently I got a lot of press with the
bombings in Boston, and that is the public safety exception. Um.
In the case of the the Boston bombing. What was
his name, Uh, Joe Car Sarnia. Okay, so Joe Car.
Joe Car did Joe Car. There's a lot of ways
(16:49):
to say it that are wrong. And then there's one
right one which I may have had in there. So
he is in the hospital. They everyone knows what happened.
You know that the bombings went off. The one brother
was killed, they called the other one, uh, and he
was wounded, and so he was in a hospital and
they had what they called an urgent public safety interview
in the hospital without reading him his rights. He's asking
(17:11):
for an attorney. They're like, you're not getting an attorney.
Why why don't you tell us what's going on? And
he did, Yeah, he did. He confessed the bombing. He
told them about um, possible other bombs. I think that's
how they found out that the apartment was possibly rigged
with explosives, or at very least there were explosives in
his apartment, his brother's apartment. UM. And they found all
(17:33):
this out by denying him his right to keep quiet. Yeah,
And a lot of people were saying, well, you guys
just blew the case. You guys, why didn't you mirandize him?
And it was because of this public safety exemption that
came about UM that the Supreme Court ruled on in Yeah,
New York v. Quarrels. Benjamin Quarrels was in custody at
(17:57):
a grocery store in nineteen eighty and rape victim had
identified him and the cop frisked him and said, hey,
you've got an empty gun holster. Here is there a
gun nearby? And he was like, yeah, it's right over there.
Cop went, got the gun unloaded. It obviously secured the scene,
and that became a court case because he was the
(18:19):
gun evidence was thrown out. An appellate court agreed, and
then later on the Supreme Court said, no, you know
what that's called. Uh, you know, securing the scene. That's
a public safety exception. You can't have a gun loaded
gun in there. You can't have bombs waiting to go
off potentially somewhere else. So forget the mirandizing. You need
to secure everything, right and um, once that, once that
(18:42):
threat to public safety is secured, then you have to
mirandize them. Yeah, in which the Boston case, he just
shut up after that, so too late. Yeah, exactly, the
feds had gotten all they wanted out of him, and
we're like, sure, whatever, And apparently a judge ordered the
FEDS to mirandize the guy after like two days of
this quiet questioning. I bet that was a pretty satisfying
reading of the rights at that point. I'm sure, you know,
(19:05):
because they knew they were covered. But I mean, this
is such a gestapo tactic too, Like we'll this question
you about everything we want for two days until the
judge ordered us to mirandi is that means that some
attorneys are gonna have to go through all two days
of that confession to pick out what at what point
the public safety exemption was basically exhausted. And I mean,
you can argue that any question that has to do
(19:26):
with possible future terrorist attacks is you know, preventing or
protecting public safety. Yeah, but it's just like, uh, I mean,
I don't know, it definitely skirts the spirit of the law.
I would think, Yeah, And I found an article written
by the guy who originally I think wrote the Quarrels verdict,
(19:49):
and he he was like, you know what, in the
case with the Boston bomber, you they shouldn't even done
that anyway, because it was so much evidence. They didn't
even need these confessions, and it wasn't the true spirit
of trying to secure public safety to find if there
was other explosives. But from that point on they were
like it was completely unnecessary because the guy was convicted
(20:10):
just from you know, the evidence was so strong that
they didn't even need that confession exactly. So like after
they found out about the bombs or whatever, whether their
word weren't bombs, then it seems to me like the
public safety exemption would have been exhausted and they would
have had to have mirandized him. It's a slippery slope.
But I mean, it's not like the CIA has to have,
you know, admissible evidence in court to go after all
(20:33):
the people that um Joe kar named, if he named
anybody or whatever he gave up, you know. So it's
just I don't know. Yeah, I'm coming to trust like
Obama's security policies like less and less. That's my opinion. No,
I get it. It's it's a it's a very fine
(20:55):
line between like, hey, this guy's a terrorist and get
that information or people still have their human rights right exactly.
And it's such a difficult thing to to swallow to
the concept that some little punk who him and his
brother blew people up in Boston and took people's lives
and legs and that they did this, that the concept
(21:17):
that they have any rights whatsoever is pretty unpalatable. But
we as a society have decided that, yeah, you do
have rights. If you're an American system, you have certain
rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights and and court interpretation of those rights. And
that's the law of the land, and um, I guess
(21:38):
to just routinely skirt around those whenever, whenever it's determined
to be called for by whoever is in charge and power.
That's that's equally impalatable. Impalatable to me because also, um,
you know, the courts judged a criminal suspect when you
invoke the public safety option, it's not that that person
(22:01):
doesn't have any rights, it's that the safety of the
public trump set person's constitutional rights right then, but just
for that narrow window of time, and then after that
it's exhausted. That's right. And this is not the first time.
It was just three years ago that the FEDS did
the same thing. They invoked the public safety exemption for
the Times Square bomber. Yeah, and he sang like a canary,
(22:24):
which is if they just did it to Joe Carson Naiev,
I don't think I would have a problem. But just
the fact that it popped up three years ago too,
that's starting an indicate a pattern to me. Yeah, terrorism,
I think is the key. Yeah, key agent there you know,
anything else, I'm done, then we're gonna get so much
(22:45):
mail for that one. Hey, buddy, you have the right
to remain fabulous thank you. That's my takeaway. Thank you.
If you want to learn more about being fabulous, you
can type that word into the search bart how stuff
works dot com. You can also type Miranda Rights m
I R A N D A Rights. Uh. And since
I said search bars somewhere in there, it's time for message,
(23:12):
and now it's time for listening to mail. Yeah. Before
listener mail, we have a quick shout out. And we
don't usually do this because we get inundated with requests
for shoutouts. Yeah, so every once in a a while they
at the right time exactly. This is an anniversary shout
out from Josh Underwood. Uh. He and his wife are
teachers in uh Robertson County, Kentucky, and they've listen to
(23:36):
our show incorporated in their classrooms and they are celebrating
their tenure anniversary. And uh, he said, if we could
say happy anniversary to Amanda, it would can't think of
anything that would make her smile more so on June fourteenth,
and he said, if it's late, and you know, don't
worry about it. So this is probably gonna be late,
but I hope you guys had a great anniversary. On
June fourteen, Happy tenth Josh and Amanda Underwood. Yeah, happy
(23:58):
anniversary you guys. Or I don't know if I'm and
it took your name whatever her name might be. Yeah,
so the real listener male speaking of taking names. Uh,
it's a good one and I'm gonna call it Royal
Tannon Bombs. Uh theory. Oh I like this already. Yeah,
it's one of my favorite movies, Losing a finger, you know,
boy chopping actor. Hi, guys, my wife Molly and I've
(24:21):
been listening for about three years. We both love it. Um.
I've always wanted to email you, but I didn't have
a reason, and I didn't want to sound like a
twelve year old girl talking to in sync or something.
Those guys pretty out of touch. Yeah, I guess it's
nineteen four. I wanted to say something interesting. So here
are two interesting things. One, my name is Josh Bryant.
Pretty interesting. It's like the two of us together, right.
(24:44):
I appreciate you taking my name. Uh. Number two he
actually had three things, but one wasn't so interesting. Uh.
Number two is I watched Wes Anderson Toroyal Tannonbombs was amazing,
how different and unique all the characters were and how
well they all worked together as a family. After reading
other theories about the movie, I think the one I
love most is that every character represents a different stage
of grief. So Denial I collect fan theories. Oh I
(25:09):
love it. That is a great one. Have you seen
Room two thirty seven? Yet no of you know I'm
dying to them. They didn't release it in Atlanta. Um alright.
So Denial is Margot Tannembaum, her unknown smoking habit, numerous marriages,
secret crush on Richie, totally denial, anger, Chaz Tannebaum, need
I say more? Pretty much throughout the whole movie, he's
(25:29):
angry and full of resentment, bargaining royal Tannebaum himself. He
lies to get out of bad gambles and gambles to
cover up bad lies. This is like pretty good and
he didn't make this up. He got off then after
that's still good. But Joshua Bryant, you getting no credit.
It's like that kid who stole that high ku from
a T shirt and um depression. Richie Tannebomb again very obvious,
(25:52):
sees when he tries to see when he tries to
commit suicide. Great scene, uh An acceptance is ethylene Tannenbaum.
Her is more subtle. Her acceptance is seen when she
accepts Mr. Sherman's marriage proposal. It's a little thing there.
It's also seen when she finally moves on from her
own marriage and accepts her new life with her new husband.
(26:13):
So that's sort of that's the most tenuous. But that's
what we think, and I think that's pretty good. I
love fan theories, like you, Yeah, five stages of greed.
I doubt if that's the case. Well, that's what makes
fan theories so great. If like, if you just unlocked
the director's secret, sure, then it's done. It's fine. Not
(26:33):
you figured it out. One of the great things about
fan theories is that it rivals what the director was
trying to do or the writer was trying to do. Yeah,
it was like English class. Remember back in English class,
it was always and I had a problem with it
back then, but now I love it. I would always
be like, well, just teachers just interpreting this, like who
knows what the author meant? Oh yeah, but that's kind
of the point. Now in my old age, I realized, Yeah,
(26:54):
I remember feeling my brain unfurl and start to get like, yeah,
there are ccific interpretations of things and that that that
kind of fit within a framework, but still are it's
pretty wide. Yeah, but great, it's nice, pretty cool fan theories.
I'm writing a blog post on him right now. I'm
collecting him. Oh yeah, so that's from Joshua Bryant. Joshua,
I guess is a result of some weird stuff you
(27:16):
should know in breeding. But yeah, he's an experiment, that's right. Yeah, Dish,
let us know where you are right now. He escape Yeah, uh,
if you escape from our lab, we want to hear
about it, especially if you have some cool fan theory. Man,
send us fan theories, like good ones. I mean like
good ones, not like uh it's stupid ones. Yeah. I've
(27:39):
been on feral children lately. What just that's been my
obsession lately, reading about feral children. I might trying to
write a think virtue fan theory. Feral children. What does
that have to do with fan theories? Nothing, That's just
that's my obsession. Yours has been fan theories. Oh, I
got you, I got I've just been obsessed with feral children. Yeah,
because there have been like actual ones in there, yeah,
like um, the Emerald Forest, the many cases. So Okay.
(28:04):
If you have a good fan theory and or a
good barrel children's story, we want to hear about it.
You can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.
You can join us on Stuff you Should Know, which
is prior to that slash, prior to that Facebook dot
com uh, you can send us an email the Stuff podcast,
that Discovery dot com, and you can join us at
(28:24):
our home on the web Stuff you Should Know dot
com for more on this and thousands of other topics.
Does it House stuff works dot com. Jack thards has
quickly become the online shopping destination for guys. Here's why
(28:47):
everything on the site is up off as a listener
of Stuff you Should Know, you can skip the membership
waitlist and get instant access at jack threads dot com,
slash k and o W stuff That's Jack threads dot com,
slash no Stuff
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.