miranda rights

[mgomez41]

What is the name of your state?Arizona

Is a police officer always required to say the miranda rights before he arrest someone and if not what is needed for them to require them to say the miranda rights

[LawGirl10]

Originally Posted by mgomez41

What is the name of your state?Arizona

Is a police officer always required to say the miranda rights before he arrest someone and if not what is needed for them to require them to say the miranda rights

No they are not required to read the suspect their Miranda rights just because an arrest has occurred. The only time the officer needs to read a suspect their Miranda rights is when the suspect is in custody (or its equivalant) AND there is interrogation. The two need to occur together. And, at any rate, that is only if they want to use the statements of the suspect against them in a court of law. However, even if a Miranda violation occurs, the statment can be used to impeach the defendant in court if the defendant chooses to testify.

[mgomez41]

thanx so basically if my statements where taken before i was arrested they can still use them in court right

[LawGirl10]

Originally Posted by mgomez41

thanx so basically if my statements where taken before i was arrested they can still use them in court right

Yes, as long as the court does not determine that you were in custody at the time of the interrogation. Sometimes, a situation that is not a blatant arrest could be determined to be custody.

The other issue you could use to fight it would be if the statement was not made voluntarily. But that is a whole other issue.

[mgomez41]

well if i actually think about it the statement wasnt made voluntarily i left the place where the problem occured so things could cool down but then returned by because the police officer called my cell phone and threatened to issue an arrest warrant if i would return within 15 minutes

[conflix]

Originally Posted by LawGirl10

Yes, as long as the court does not determine that you were in custody at the time of the interrogation. Sometimes, a situation that is not a blatant arrest could be determined to be custody.

I am glad to see you did some research and learned my assertions in the other thread are/were in fact, founded.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by LawGirl10

Yes, as long as the court does not determine that you were in custody at the time of the interrogation. Sometimes, a situation that is not a blatant arrest could be determined to be custody.

One of these days you're going to get it right. MIRANDA is NOT required in the circumstance prooffered in this post. While the poster may have been in custody, unable to freely leave, there has been no proof offered that this was a custodial interrogation. The ONLY thing that has been offered is that the poster returned, for whatever reason, and talked to the police.
The poster could have, at any time, left, decided not to talk or asked that an attorney be present and did not. They could have asked if they were 'under arrest' but they did not. And lastly, they could have asked is this an interrogation and they did not.

The other issue you could use to fight it would be if the statement was not made voluntarily. But that is a whole other issue.

From the facts presented, it was.

[LawGirl10]

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

One of these days you're going to get it right. MIRANDA is NOT required in the circumstance prooffered in this post. While the poster may have been in custody, unable to freely leave, there has been no proof offered that this was a custodial interrogation. The ONLY thing that has been offered is that the poster returned, for whatever reason, and talked to the police.
The poster could have, at any time, left, decided not to talk or asked that an attorney be present and did not. They could have asked if they were 'under arrest' but they did not. And lastly, they could have asked is this an interrogation and they did not.

From the facts presented, it was.

Good God, read the sequence of posts before you start making a post like that. He gave the facts AFTER I explained Miranda, not before. I NEVER said it was required after he explained the facts. I gave a general description of the requirements of Miranda. He LATER responded with the facts of the case. Do you see any response of mine after he actually gave the facts?

[LawGirl10]

Originally Posted by conflix

I am glad to see you did some research and learned my assertions in the other thread are/were in fact, founded.

Uh, no I don't. I said custody or its equivalent. Custody is still required. Not just responding to incriminating questions. You are still wrong.

[CdwJava]

Remember also that Conflix asserts that "probable cause" equals "custody" for Miranda purposes.

- Carl

Originally Posted by mgomez41

What is the name of your state?Arizona

Is a police officer always required to say the miranda rights before he arrest someone and if not what is needed for them to require them to say the miranda rights

[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html[/url]

Miranda covers confessions, not arrests.

[mgomez41]

but wouldnt it be considered like being under custody since i was told by the police officer that if i would not come back an arrest warrant would be issued

he wanted me to return to give my statements which would incriminate me basically i was returning to be interrogated

i was forced to return i told the officer we could converse over the phone he refused at the time i didnt realize that i didnt have to talk to him an could of had an attorney present dont u think he should of informed me of those rights

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by mgomez41

but wouldnt it be considered like being under custody since i was told by the police officer that if i would not come back an arrest warrant would be issued

You could make the argument that you were compelled to appear and you felt that based on the comment you had no choice and were not free to go ... however, while it may go to counter the voluntariness of anything asked, the situation may not be sufficient to compel a court to determine that you were "in custody" at the time of the interview.

Making a comment like that is not likely to be seen as custody for purposes of Miranda. It could be a simple statement of fact ... "Come back and talk to us or I will get a warrant for your arrest."

What does your attorney say?

- Carl

[LawGirl10]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Remember also that Conflix asserts that "probable cause" equals "custody" for Miranda purposes.

- Carl

Yeah, I still get a kick out of that.

[mgomez41]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

You could make the argument that you were compelled to appear and you felt that based on the comment you had no choice and were not free to go ... however, while it may go to counter the voluntariness of anything asked, the situation may not be sufficient to compel a court to determine that you were "in custody" at the time of the interview.

Making a comment like that is not likely to be seen as custody for purposes of Miranda. It could be a simple statement of fact ... "Come back and talk to us or I will get a warrant for your arrest."

What does your attorney say?

- Carl

my attorney agrees with you

based on what the officer said i was put in a situation where i thought that either way appear or not appear i would end up getting arrested

my only choice was to come and talk to him and to further emphasize i kind of argued on the phone with officer asking him well if i come will i be arrested and why cant i just talk over the phone his replies where i need your statement in person

i could also say that based on comments made by victims in this situation the officer had assumed that i was already under arrest and he just needed me to appear so he could arrest me which means that my statements could be considered to have been made while in custody

but i might be wrong so correct me if need so