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.
Well, you didn't remember it too well. The Bush-era debacle was rooted in the fact that the NSA under Bush's administration didn't even bother with getting the after-the-fact court authorization as required by the FISA law. In other words, the GWB policy was one of completely warrantless wiretaps.
See the difference?
And before Bush, too. In fact, it probably happens to this day. We just don't know it.
Well, to be fair to them they are probably trying to protect the rights of the right wing terrorists. In fact, they'd probably throw hissy fits if a right wing terrorist wasn't Mirandize.
People are arrested all the time without being read their rights. People on a bench warrant for example are never read their rights because they are not going to be questioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
The onlything you got right in this post, is the bench warrant.
And then YOU go on to quote the part which proves I'm correct..
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
IF that bench warrant is something as simple as a no show for a court appearance or a traffic violation or child support, no a suspect is not mirandized.
translation, they are arrested and detained for trial without being mirandized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wrong.. Once a person is being questioned, AND those questions might be used against them in a court of law, THEN they will be read their miranda rights.
You can also arrest an individual and question them without reading their miranda rights, IF you are not going to use what they say against them in a court of law.
Its so sad to see so many americans have no clue on laws which govern them.
This is the part you said I was wrong about, but then you go on to quote the LAW stating I'm correct. Lets follow this through, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
But when taking someone into custody and or interrogating a person of interest for a crime or someone not in the case of the bomber, once he is taken into custody he MUST be read his miranda rights. There's no if's and's or but's about it. After miranda is read, the police have 48 hours to charge the suspect or let them go. You can NOT arrest ANYONE and hold them in custody, without mirandizing them. That is not only a violation of that person's 5th amendment rights. If this guy was not read his rights immediately upon being taken into custody, then that is a problem.
You are flat out wrong. Its true that they have 48 hours to charge you or let you go, but this has NOTHING to do with being mirandized, that has to deal with the amount of time after they detain you. They can indeed mirandize you and come back YEARS later and charge you with a crime, and they can indeed arrest and hold someone in custody without mirandizing them.
And the parts in bold below verify the accuracy of my posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
What are the "Miranda" Rights?
In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendmentright not to make any self-incriminating statements. As a result of Miranda, anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questioned:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
It is so sad that americans have no clue on laws which govern them, and maybe you should include yourself in that as well.
I think you need to re-read your response to me because you VERIFIED that I was correct while trying to school me how wrong I was..
I also note how you stopped and dint quote the rest of your link.. When police officers question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. Any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession will likely also be thrown out of the case.
it does NOT say that you cant question them while in custody without miranda warning, it says that whatever you say WILL BE THROWN OUT. That doesnt mean the case ends and the criminal gets to go free.. It means the case must be made based upon the physical evidence, and YES, you can indeed be found guilty on physical evidence alone..
Huh? Can you please provide the precedence for this. You can not hold anyone in custody, hold a trial, find them guilty and sentence them without miranda. Not only does that violate the 5th and 6th amendment, but it also violates the 14th amendment. Now if you have some cases that you can reference, I would definately like to see them.
Miranda Warnings The Miranda warning only governs communications and testimony. A violation of Miranda rights cannot result in the exclusion of real or physical evidence. This means that during a DUI / DWI investigation, an officer will use the way in which a statement is made against the defendant. For example, if the defendant had slurred speech or seemed disoriented, the officer may note these facts on the police report.
And then YOU go on to quote the part which proves I'm correct..
translation, they are arrested and detained for trial without being mirandized.
This is the part you said I was wrong about, but then you go on to quote the LAW stating I'm correct. Lets follow this through, shall we?
Nice try as usual. What part of "the only part you got RIGHT was the bench warrant".
You are flat out wrong. Its true that they have 48 hours to charge you or let you go, but this has NOTHING to do with being mirandized, that has to deal with the amount of time after they detain you. They can indeed mirandize you and come back YEARS later and charge you with a crime, and they can indeed arrest and hold someone in custody without mirandizing them.
WRONG maybe you need to take a criminal law class. Outside of someone being held on a "bench warrant" a PERSON OF INTEREST CAN NOT BE HELD IN POLICE CUSTODY WITHOUT GIVEN THEIR MIRANDA WARNING. NOW if the police use the "public safety" rule, which is rarely used that is a different story, but in the end they ARE read their miranda rights. No one ever stated that a person could not be re-arrested or charged. But it should also be noted, depending on the crime, their is a statue of limitation.
And the parts in bold below verify the accuracy of my posting.
I think you need to re-read your response to me because you VERIFIED that I was correct while trying to school me how wrong I was..
I also note how you stopped and dint quote the rest of your link.. When police officers question a suspect in custody without first giving the Miranda warning, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. Any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession will likely also be thrown out of the case.
Nice try, there was no need for me to read the "what if police fail to read me my rights" question. This is ALL THAT matters when it comes to miranda and a person being questioned and held in police custody.
What are the "Miranda" Rights?
In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the historic case of Miranda v. Arizona, declaring that whenever a person is taken into police custody, before being questioned he or she must be told of the Fifth Amendment right not to make any self-incriminating statements. As a result of Miranda, anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questioned:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
it does NOT say that you cant question them while in custody without miranda warning, it says that whatever you say WILL BE THROWN OUT. That doesnt mean the case ends and the criminal gets to go free.. It means the case must be made based upon the physical evidence, and YES, you can indeed be found guilty on physical evidence alone..
Again your intepretation is just amazing. You saw that little "what if" queston and felt that it validated your post, well it doesn't.
Again your intepretation is just amazing. You saw that little "what if" queston and felt that it validated your post, well it doesn't.
Lets create my own "what if" question then..
If an individual is arrested, and interrogated, without their miranda rights being read.. Do they get to go free, or does trial continue and the individual get convicted on the OTHER evidence?
Miranda Warnings The Miranda warning only governs communications and testimony. A violation of Miranda rights cannot result in the exclusion of real or physical evidence. This means that during a DUI / DWI investigation, an officer will use the way in which a statement is made against the defendant. For example, if the defendant had slurred speech or seemed disoriented, the officer may note these facts on the police report.
so your referencing the difference between a DUI traffic stop and miranda and someone accused of trafficking or murder and miranda? Nice try, but you missed the key part in article.
The Miranda warning only governs communications and testimony. A violation of Miranda rights cannot result in the exclusion of real or physical evidence. This means that during a DUI / DWI investigation, an officer will use the way in which a statement is made against the defendant. For example, if the defendant had slurred speech or seemed disoriented, the officer may note these facts on the police report.
No where does this state what you claimed. That a person could be arrested, TRIED, and found guilty without the reading of their miranda rights.
so your referencing the difference between a DUI traffic stop and miranda and someone accused of trafficking or murder and miranda? Nice try, but you missed the key part in article.
The Miranda warning only governs communications and testimony. A violation of Miranda rights cannot result in the exclusion of real or physical evidence. This means that during a DUI / DWI investigation, an officer will use the way in which a statement is made against the defendant. For example, if the defendant had slurred speech or seemed disoriented, the officer may note these facts on the police report.
No where does this state what you claimed. That a person could be arrested, TRIED, and found guilty without the reading of their miranda rights.
Again..
If an individual is arrested, and interrogated, without their miranda rights being read.. Do they get to go free, or does trial continue and the individual get convicted on the OTHER evidence?
answer: http://research.lawyers.com/Pleading...-Warnings.html False: If you were questioned without being read the Miranda warning, and are then charged with a crime, the charges will automatically be dropped, or the court will automatically find you not guilty. True: It's wrong to think that no Miranda warning will get you off the hook. Prosecutors may still have sufficient other evidence to convict you of a crime, even if they ignore the evidence that you provided under questioning.
If an individual is arrested, and interrogated, without their miranda rights being read.. Do they get to go free, or does trial continue and the individual get convicted on the OTHER evidence?
Questioning by the police has been done without miranda no doubt, BUT miranda HAS TO be given for a person to be HELD in custody. Their can be no trial without miranda. Where are you getting this from? How can a person go to trial without a lawyer? How can a person be convicted without a lawyer? What lawyer will allow their client to go to trial without their righs protected? What judge is going to hear that case without a person being mirandized?
If your trying to include traffic stops or child support, these are bench trials.
Questioning by the police has been done without miranda no doubt, BUT miranda HAS TO be given for a person to be HELD in custody. Their can be no trial without miranda. Where are you getting this from? How can a person go to trial without a lawyer? How can a person be convicted without a lawyer? What lawyer will allow their client to go to trial without their righs protected? What judge is going to hear that case without a person being mirandized?
If your trying to include traffic stops or child support, these are bench trials.
WRONG.. You keep repeating yourself, but ignoring the question. AGAIN, If they arrest you for something like murder, and do not read you the miranda rights, do you get to go home and not proceed with trial? Are you avoiding the question because you know the answer will prove you are incorrect?
"Pleading the Fifth" and Miranda Warnings - Lawyers.com False: Police must read you the Miranda warning when they arrest you. True: You won't automatically be read the Miranda warning if you are arrested, nor do you need to be arrested before being read a Miranda warning. If police arrest you, but don't expect to question you (usually because they already have enough evidence to prove you committed a crime), you may not be read the warning. Similarly, if police ask you to voluntarily come in for questioning, but don't have sufficient evidence to arrest you, you'll be read the Miranda warning before being questioned.
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.
