Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Officers don't tell people their Miranda rights, until they are formally arrested.
You're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12
So, they are just all chatty, and try to manipulate a suspect into a confession. So, when it comes to talking to police officers...just answer the questions, don't offer more information, and when they start wanting to "discuss" the answers that you made to questions, that is the time to leave.
What other sorts of legal advise do you offer? When being questioned by a police officer, are the secret code words to get up and leave "let's discuss"?
1. Smith has been accused of aggravated assault in which he stabbed the victim with a knife and he is sitting in the police interrogation room with handcuffs on. The police have made no attempt to interrogate Smith as of yet and he has not been advised of his rights. Smith finally asks the police if he can have a cup of coffee. A detective goes to get Smith a cup of coffee. When the officer returns with the coffee, he looks into the cup and makes a comment about "that coffee is the color blood". Smith is already on edge and when he hears the comment about "blood" he breaks down and confesses that he stabbed the victim in this case.
Is Smith's confession admissible? Why or why not?
Admissible, no question probative question had been posed to Mr. Smith, as a result, his confession was freely and spontaneously given.
2. It is thought that Brown is a burglar who is responsible for a string of residential burglaries in the area. When he is caught trying to fence some stolen goods, the police take him into custody. On the way to the police station, Brown is not advised of his rights. A police detective in the car does not question Brown, but instead makes a statement out loud. He says "One of the things taken during a burglary was a priceless family heirloom that belongs to Mrs. Richardson. Its a picture of her brother who was killed in the navy during World War II. Since that has happened, she is an eighty year old woman who has been unable to eat, is very depressed, and cannot sleep. The doctors think this may kill her. If you have one shred of decency or humanity in you, you'll help recover that picture." Brown than states that he knows where the picture is and that he took it. Can this statement be used against Brown at trial? Why or why not?
Inadmissible, Brown was in police custody and while he wasn't asked a proper question the statement by the arresting officer was framed to elicit a response either verbal or by action that would implicate Brown as the perpetrator of the crime.
3. Black is an adult and has been charged with bank robbery. He is taken into custody and given his Miranda Rights. He states that he is willing to waive his rights and talk to the police. There is no problem until the detective interrogating Black shows him a Mapquest print out from a computer that shows directions from Black's home to the bank that was robbed. At this point, Black says "I think it might be a good idea if I spoke to a lawyer". Black never says he is revoking his waiver of his Miranda Rights. The detective asks another question though and Black responds to it. Interrogation continues and Black finally admits he robbed the bank. Is Black's statement that he robbed the bank admissible during trial? Why or why not?
Ah a tricky one. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court has ruled that a suspect must make an "unambiguous assertion of their right to remain silent." As a result Black's statement may be deemed sufficiently vague as to not constitute a clear and unambiguous assertion of his right to a lawyer. What complicates Black's problem is his original clear waiver of his 5th Amendment rights.
If a suspect is not in police custody (i.e., "under arrest"), the police do not have to warn him of his rights.
It's not precisely correct that being in police custody is the same as being under arrest. "Custody" could mean simply that the officer is briefly detaining the person because of suspicious conduct, which falls short of technically being an arrest. Upon first detaining a person simply for generally suspicious behavior, an officer might ask a few brief questions about the person's actions, or reasons for being in the area. If the officer becomes aware of evidence that a particular crime has been committed, and suspects the person being detained, then it's time for the Miranda warning if the officer intends to question the person further, but at this point the person is still not technically under arrest.
An arrest techinically means being taken into police custody specifically so that the police may file charges. At the point where the police are detaining someone they suspect of committing a crime, but when there is not yet enough evidence to amount to probable cause--probable cause being the level of certainty needed so that charges may be filed--then technically this is not an arrest, even though a person being detained briefly on the street because of suspicious conduct may not be legally free to walk away.
Technicalities aside, if you are being questioned by police officers...err on the side of caution, even if you are innocent. Tell the truth, answer questions, do not volunteer information. Keep your answers short, and direct. Request that the officers leave if you feel like you are being bullied, coerced. If you take a polygraph exam, and the officer states that your answers indicate deception, do not say anything aside from, "the statement is the truth".
When you are in doubt, get a lawyer. Teens and children should never talk to police officers without parents present, drill that into your children...I have told my children that a million times...and they know it.
I'll elaborate on Japer12's advice to have a lawyer present "when in doubt." Jasper12 offered advice on handling polygraph results. I would suggest that if things get to the point where the police ask you to take a polygraph exam, you want a lawyer by that time, and you want the lawyer already present before you take the polygraph exam, or before you decide even whether to agree to take the exam, which is a decision about which the lawyer can offer advice.
The part of Japer12's post about asking the cops to leave if you feel you're being bullied or coerced is tricky. Jasper12, were you talking about questioning when a suspect is actually in custody at the police station? In that case, if you're feeling uncomfortable about the tone of the questioning, your best move may be simply to refuse to answer any more questions.
If an officer stops you on the street, asking him to leave if you feel his questions are getting pushy is where it gets tricky. This may vary some from state to state--not sure--but generally the police may briefly detain someone who appears to be behaving suspiciously. In such a case, even though the person being detained is not under arrest, he is not legally free to leave either. At that point you're not going to do yourself any favor by telling the cop that you want him to leave. It's not your call.
In the situation where you're stopped on the street, you may not know whether the cop has observed suspicious behavior that gives him grounds to detain you against your will, or has simply approached you with the request that you provide ID and/or answer questions about your activities. The officer is not required to inform you if you are being detained and are not free to leave, and unless you ask, he may be deliberately vague on this point to make you less likely to walk away if you're not required to remain where you are.
An additional twist is that you may have no idea why you appear suspicious, but you still may legitimately appear suspicious from the cop's point of view. In such a case you may not be sure why you're being stopped. One time I was pulled over while driving through a quiet suburb at something like 3:30AM. Dead town, no one else on the road but me and the cop. It turned out that I had a taillight out, which was the situation that gave the officer the legal ground to stop me. I have little doubt that he was more interested in checking out what I was doing out and about at that time of night than he was concerned about the taillight, but I didn't know I had a light out until the cop told me. Even though I didn't know at first what the legal grounds were for pulling me over, it would not have been to my advantage to get testy about why I was being pulled over.
Even when you're out on foot, you may legitimately have no idea why a cop wants to stop and question you, while the cop may have good reason to stop you. For example, you may resemble the description of someone the police are searching for who has committed some crime in the area shortly before. In situations like this, it's usually best to just be cooperative, while giving only brief, factual answers to any questions the officer might ask.
I was once bullied by police, simply answering questions about a crime that occurred in my home. I was not detained, or under arrest. I "thought" I was just being helpful, and trying to help find out what happened. For this same incident, I took a polygraph, willingly, as I had nothing to hide, and naively thought that after taking a polygraph to "rule" me out as a suspect, the police would do their job, and find the real person guilty of the crime...wrong...I was told I failed the poly, and that I needed to just talk about what "really" happened. The whole experience I had with that incident has completely changed about how I view police, and presumption of innocence. And statements given to police. They decided I was guilty, and were going to brow beat me into a confession. No one ever read me my rights. I went along with the police for over two weeks, trying to "help" them, what I did not realize, is that they kept questioning me, to find inconsistencies, not for information to find the person guilty of the crime, because they already decided I was the guilty one. So, until you have actually had an experience with being questioned by police, over and over again, don't go on about how police inform you of "rights", they don't. Been there, had the worst month of my life. Told flat out, several times that I was a liar, and not helping them find the "guilty" person. And I did not care about the person who was dead, a family member...so, deal with grief, loss, being a victim of crime, and then deal with people who you think are going to help you...but really just have already decided you are guilty, and will confess if they brow beat you enough. It happened to me, it can happen to anyone. Thank god I am white, highly educated, and have plenty of money. Because I finally did "lawyer up", and at that time the police then basically told me that they knew I was guilty, after I got a lawyer...because if I was innocent I did not need one!!! Well, then why was I relentlessly questioned for a month, of telling the truth??? Believe me, I honestly believe that if I was poor, uneducated, and African-American, I would have been charged with a crime, I did not commit, and probably be in jail now. Wait until you are in this situation, and see how informed you are about rights...and remaining silent. If you don't talk, you are guilty, if you do talk, they just try to bully you into a confession, if you get a lawyer, you are guilty, believe me, you get a whole different perspective on police, laws, polygraphs, the judicial system, when you are questioned, relentlessly, about a crime you did not commit.
Jasper, it sounds as if this experience of yours happened in the past and is over with now. For anyone reading this who might be heavily questioned by police in the future, I'll say that if it gets to the point where the police want you to take a polygraph test, they consider you a strong suspect. You really need to have a lawyer at this point. You'd be best off not taking the polygraph test until getting a lawyer's advice about whether you even should take the test at all. If you do take the test, you want a lawyer there to witness the testing and make sure the test is administered properly, and to advise you on how to handle things once the results are determined.
If the cops try to tell you that seeking a lawyer shows that you're guilty, keep in mind that if they believe you're guilty, the police will try to keep you off balance, in the hope of tripping you up so that you say something that reveals what they believe is your guilt. Don't listen to that talk about how seeking a lawyer's advice proves that you're guilty. They're just trying to get you rattled, in the hope that you'll break down and confess to a crime they believe you've committed. Once you have the lawyer present, you'll be getting advice on how to handle the questioning. You're better off when you have that expert there advising you.
I'm not a lawyer, by the way, but I have seen, and been involved in, some situations that show how valuable a lawyer's advice can be. The average person just does not know the fine points of how the law really works, and can be at a real disadvantage trying to fly solo when faced with a legal predicament.
If Maria is here illegally why does she have miranda rights? She's not a citizen, and there for doesn't have the same protections under the law correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
In order for the police to be required to give Miranda rights two things are first required:
1. A suspect must first be in police custody;
2. A statement must be made in response to interrogation by police;
Let's go through an example or two: The police have heard about a burglary in an apartment and are questioning other apartment dwellers nearby about noises they heard the night before. No one is given a Miranda warning. Suddenly, a neighboring tenant tells the police he committed the burglary. Is the statement admissible at the trial of this individual? Absolutely. The man was not in custody when the interrogation took place.
The police suspect Jones committed a murder. They ask Jones to come down to the police station and give a statement. Jones comes down freely and of his own accord. At the station, the police even inform Jones he is free to go if he chooses. The police do not give him a Miranda warning. Jones chooses to stay and when confronted by the police with the murder weapon, confesses to the crime. Is Jones's statement admissible at his trial for murder? It almost certainly is. Because Jones was "free to go" and he was not technically in police custody at the time.
Maria has committed the crime of returning to America after having once been deported to Mexico for illegal entering the USA. She is at a construction worksite when agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement come. Maria sees the agents and panics and begins to run. An agent yells "freeze" at her. Maria stops. The immigration agent questions Maria, but does not advice her of her Miranda rights. Maria confesses she illegally re-entered the USA. Is her confession admissible at trial for breaking this law? Probably not. When the officer said "freeze" that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were not "free to go". This, in effect, was placing her in custody. Her confession afterwards was given in response to interrogation.
The Miranda Rule is poorly understood by some members of the public as is shown by at least one of the responses above. Even if evidence is excluded by the rule, the exclusion only applies to the "prosecution's case in chief". For example, if the Defendant chooses to testify in his own defense than statements he made in violation of the Miranda Rule generally can be used to impeach his testimony.
There are also exceptions to the rule. One exception that is recognized is a "public safety exception". For example, a robber runs into a store and hides a loaded gun among the canned goods. Its possible that a child might find the gun and cause death or injury. The courts have held that interrogation by the police to discover whether a weapon has been hidden in a public area may be used against a perpetrator.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
