Please let me know what the law is. I thought Miranda rights were given only after a person is arrested.
You got it!!
Miranda applies to custodial interrogation, not mere interviews.
Mirandizing applies at the point at which the person becomes targeted as an actual criminal suspect. In this case the person being asked questions was already the subject of a rape compliant, o it’s hard to argue they weren’t a suspect. Police can ask non-suspects informational questions all day long without Mirandizing. If the police asked something like, “Heard any good rape claims about this hospital lately?”, and the person confesses, that’s not a Miranda problem.
The court’s ruling the status quo in place. The only remedy for Miranda violations remains excluding statements (and evidence that derived from them) from court when made prior to a criminal suspect being “Mirandized”. The suspects can’t sue the investigator for not Mirandizing them. The ruling does zip to the 5th amendment.
You are correct. First though, officers are not required to Mirandize someone just because they make an arrest. But, once the person is in custody, then the Miranda rights must be read before the suspect is questioned.