if you are arrested, don't the cops HAVE to read you your rights?

[mark414]

let's say you were arrested for say...possession (not me, a friend), and from the time the cuffs went on to the time they released you down at the station you weren't ever read your rights. you were still ticketed for the offense and everything, but no rights.

can't that be thrown out in court on a technicality? don't cops HAVE to read you your rights when you're arrested?

[GirlinContempt]

1. Dunno about

there, but I know here they do. And it can be thrown out.

[ret5hd]

2. the prob is sgetting the cops to fess up...

wait...that shouldn't be a problem. we all know how honest cops are.

[GirlinContempt]

3. Looked it up

Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?

A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave.

Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?

A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

[mark414]

5. "any statements made...

them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court."

i wonder if that includes "statements" that were found on their person

[GirlinContempt]

8. No, i dont think it does

cause it doesn't count if you say something 'spontaneously', so I doubt it.

Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?

A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given.

[GirlinContempt]

11. Also, this might be helpful

http://www.law.washington.edu/streetlaw/lessons/Miranda2.pdf

forgot to add the }(

[jukes]

12. mark414

nope. only applies to oral statements, excluding unsolicited "oral admissions. for example, let's say your friend was searched and blurted out, "fuck, you found my stash!"; oops, admissable.

there ARE distinct limitations on searches; that's what you need to explore. generally, "search incident to a lawful arrest"; ie, he was popt for something else & they searched him after the arrest; "custodial search", if they had the right to impound the car, they can search the car to insure the vehicle contents don't disappear @ the impound lot but any contraband found is admissable; "terry vs ohio" gives the officer LIMITED powers to "patdown" and search the immediate area w/in a car if circumstances (time of day, area, etc) cause him to feel reasonable fear for his safety. a "terry" search does NOT include retrieving a soft object, like a bag of grass, from a pocket, but DOES justify retrieving it from under a carseat if he sees the driver bend down "as if" placing a weapon under the seat.

those are the usu that pop into my head, but a lawyer cd define better. to be honest, lots of coppers will "bend" one of the stated to justify the search, and pork perjure themselves frequently.

[xmas74]

18. That is not a statement.

Did he give the officer consent to search or was the pot in open view?

(added)

I only ask because when I dispatch I have to log when consent to search is given. I also have to log when someone is Mirandized. And I have to log open view-at least in my state.

[warrens]

16. No interrogation, no Miranda

As long as anything he said is not used in court, no problem. Miranda is simply a protection against self-incrimination. If they didn't question him, no harm, no foul.

[RandomKoolzip]

4. They repealed Miranda, I thought....

lemme google it.

[GirlinContempt]

6. 7-2, in favour of keeping it

[RandomKoolzip]

9. Yeah, you're right.

I remembered the big stink about repealing Miranda a few years ago, and just found an article that says Ted Olsen was behind the push for repealing it. (big suprise...what a dooshbag)

[GirlinContempt]

10. Noooo kidding

*shakes head*
"If the police are incompetent, can't we still punish people?"
Durrrr

[xmas74]

19. And he might be a nominee

I really have both fear and hatred of him all at once. He'll be the ruin of us yet.

[RandomKoolzip]

7. Found this article from 2002:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/24/212952/17

It mentions Ted Olsen (scumbag). Barf alert.

[Historic NY]

13. You are required to answer general questions......

name, address, social security number, etc.

Police are allowed to gather information at the scene of a crime the general who, what, when, where, why. They are questioning witness and even sometimes the offender. Once evidence or this general collection of information implicates a suspect and further questioning or an interrogation will be conducted Miranda Warnings are required. Now that doesn't mean if they charge or arrest you at a crime scene they have to do so. Statements of witness's, a show up, investigation at the scene, etc. can give them more than enough probable cause to arrest w/o questioning you.

Any direct questioning about the offense requires Miranda...it can either be read to you or they can give you a form to read and sign.

Now of course if you should decide to run your mouth and make comments even without Miranda warning being read...spontaneous utterances they can be used against you. You can also take it to the bank that the officer will write down the general nature of these comments and a "notice of intent" will be filed to use them. In NY its called a 710.30 form.

General guidelines

Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?

A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.

Q. Can police question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?

A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody.

Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?

A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?

A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given.

Q. If you first say you don't want a lawyer, can you still demand one during questioning?

A. Yes. A person being questioned by the police can terminate the interrogation at any time by asking for an attorney and stating that he or she declines to answer further questions until an attorney is present. However, any statements made up until that point during the interrogation may be used in court.

[Zuni]

14. miranda only in regards to questioning

if they want to interogate you, then you have to be read miranda. But it is not required upon arrest, only upon interoggation

[ET Awful]

15. All the Miranda rights do is protect you from self-incrimination.

Physical evidence is not covered under Miranda rights (i.e. if you have drugs in your posession).

If your friend was arrested for posession of a controlled substance, that is evidence enough, even if they questioned him and the responses to those questions were thrown out due to him not having his rights read, the fact that he had the substance in his posession would still be enough to gain a conviction.

[tjwmason]

17. "a friend"

I believe you - thousands wouldn't.

They recently re-wrote the text over here, which has made it into some ghastly bureaucratese.