SmokeyMcPott

I ran a search and didn't turn up anything I was looking for, so sorry if this has been covered. I was just reading a document on when an officer is supposed to read you your Miranda rights or whatever they're called, and it stated that the officer is required to do so when you are taken into custody, or when he is going to interrogate you about a crime. I won't go into details, but I was recently taken into custody, and not read my rights at any point. Could this be enough to get me out of court? Thanks for all your help!

__________________
"When the power of love overcomes love of power, the world will have peace..."

Buzzby

They're supposed to read you your Miranda rights when you're arrested. Were you detained and then later arrested? Did they read you your rights then?

__________________

SmokeyMcPott

I was never declared "under arrest", but rather the cop frisked me, then put me in the car and took me downtown. After that I sat in the interrogation room until the report was filed, then I was let go. The document I read also said that a cop doesnt have to read you your rights when you're under arrest, but maybe it needs a lil research.

BartSimpson

I remember Phuzzy01 talking about this . . . and saying that if the cause for the arrest was something observed and sufficent, that no further interview was required, then the Miranda requirement was not an issue.

So if the Officer observed MJ in your car, and arrested you for that, he/she need not Mirandize you because no additional interview was required. Does this match your circumstances?

Cassius

They only have to read you your rights if they're going to interrogate you about a crime they are investigating. If they have no intention of asking you any questions beyond identification, then they don't have to say one word to you, even if they are charging you with a crime (arresting you).

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

SmokeyMcPott

Alright then... Thanks guys.

BartSimpson

Same day service, no extra charge.

phuzz01

What you read was close, but it was one VERY important word off, the word "or":

An officer is required to read you Miranda when you are taken into custody AND are being interrogated about a crime.

You can be taken into custody but not interrogated, and Miranda is not required. You can be interrogated but not taken into custody, and Miranda is not required. It is required only when both of those circumstances are met.

There are dozens of court cases about what exactly constitutes "custody," and what exactly constitutes "interrogation." Custody, though, is generally defined by the courts as when a reasonable person, looking at the totality of the circumstances, would not feel free to leave. Interrogation is generally defined as a systematic manner of questioning that is designed to lead the defendant to make incriminating statements.

From the very small amount of information that you posted, it sounds like you were "in custody" but that they did not "interrogate" you.

Finally, one might ask what happens if there is a Miranda violation. That is, what happens if you are in custody and interrogated but not read Miranda? The answer is that any incriminating statements that you made while in custody would not be admissible in court. However, it does not mean that the charges get automatically thrown out. If the police have enough evidence prior to the Miranda violation to convict you, you can still be convicted.

law420

Evidence that is excluded because it is a Miranda violation can be used in limited situations. For example--at grand jury proceedings. It can also be used at trial to impeach a witness. Let's say you arrest someone and fail to give them their Miranda warning and they confess to selling heroin. This admission can be used at trial to impeach the witness if they come to the stand and during cross they say that they never sold heroin.

In an earlier post you stated that you have a Pre-Miranda right to silence. This is true, but the prosecuter can use this silence against the defendant. The prosecuter is only prohibitted from using post-miranda silence against the defendant.

phuzz01

There are no defendants, defense attorneys, or judges at grand jury proceedings. So obviously, a defense attorney cannot move to suppress statements, and a judge cannot suppress them.

I suppose that is true. However, it would be a pretty stupid defense attorney that puts his client on the stand in that kind of a case. And, the defense can argue that, even for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness, the use of that statement in violation of Miranda is prejudicial to the defendant's constitutional rights and should be suppressed. My state's Supreme Court tends to be much more strict in terms of restricting law enforcement and protecting Constitutional rights than the US Supreme Court is.

I never said otherwise. And one always has the right against self-incrimination, period.