qeustioning by police

[talons]

What is the name of your state? Washington

A friend of mine was being qeustioned by an officer. When my friend told the officer she did no onger want to answer any questions and told the officer to talk to her attorney, the officer ignored this request and kept qeustioning her. Has a crime been committed?

Also the same officer later represented herself as a person from the DA's office in an attempt to get an entity to not hand over documents important to a defense case. Has a crime been commited?

 

[EnemyToTheState]

Miranda rights only apply to those being arrested. Was your friend arrested?

 

[talons]

No. But it had to do with a crime that they had suspicion that she had something to do with.

 

[EnemyToTheState]

The police aren't committing any crime by asking questions in the course of their investigation of a crime... if that is what you are getting at.

Sounds kinda silly, don't it?

 

[hexeliebe]

Miranda rights only apply to those being arrested. Was your friend arrested?

Sorry Enemy, but wrong. The police are only required to Mirandize someone whom they question. The Miranda warnings are not required upon arrest, booking or any time during the process of arrest.

Miranda warnings are given so that any answers to a police officer's questions may be used against the suspect. If questions are asked and answered without Miranda, then these answers cannot be used as evidence against the person being questioned.

However, there is no Miranda required for voluntary utterances such as when a police officer knocks on your door and you open it saying "I wondered how fast you guys would know I killed that *******!"

 

[EnemyToTheState]

I would like to argue this point, but not out of a "I am right; you are wrong" stance, but more out of a "what is the real answer?"

From the various research that I have conducted prior to this thread's existence on the topic of Miranda Rights, I have continually found that the suspect or person interrogated must be in custodial control by the police or other law enforcement in order for the reading of Miranda Rights to be of any value.

Maybe saying that one has to be 'arrested' was bit extreme, but it does imply that one must be detained to an extent where the person is not free to leave in order to be read their rights

If this is otherwise, please provide a link to the resource that states so.

Here are some that I have found:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Criminal/Rights.html

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/criminal_rights_police/miranda.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/miranda_rights.htm

http://www.fraudaid.com/How-To-Deal-With-Having-Been-Conned/miranda_rights.htm

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/juvenile_law/miranda_rights_read.htm

 

[hexeliebe]

While those references are o.k. check the U.S. Supreme court.

I think you'll be surprised.

 

[EnemyToTheState]

Oh, yeah... been to their site. It is hardly user-friendly in that regard....

However, after pursuing a few .PDF's on cases regarding Miranda Rights, they certainly do use the term "custodial interrogation" a lot.

 

[slodrew]

Miranda rights only apply to those being arrested. Was your friend arrested?

The fifth amendment protects all people at all times from answering questions. Never consent to any questioning, conversation, etc. without seeing a lawyer. What you say can and will be used against you regardless of whether or not you are being detained, arrested, or written a traffic ticket.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

HEY numnuts.

This post is almost TWO YEARS OLD!

You think anyone cares what you have to say, especially when it's meaningless.

 

[laurenamber]

Sorry Enemy, but wrong. The police are only required to Mirandize someone whom they question. The Miranda warnings are not required upon arrest, booking or any time during the process of arrest.QUOTE]

That is incorrect. Miranda rights MUST be read while/during/before the arrest. Police cannot assume that every criminal knows their rights.

There have been MANY cases that were thrown out of court JUST BECAUSE of the fact that their rights had not been stated at the time of arrest.

 

[laurenamber]

HEY numnuts.

This post is almost TWO YEARS OLD!

You think anyone cares what you have to say, especially when it's meaningless.

It's actually numbnuts- And who cares HOW OLD the post is- It's obvious that it is still being read. Even though the actual poster might not be around to read or respond, it is still an adequate thread to use as a reference...in case there are others with the same question/situation.

 

[Kane]

Miranda comes into play when the police are conducting a custodial interrogation. If one of those two elements are not present - custody or interrogation - Miranda is not relevant. Failing to read Miranda is not a crime. At most, it can result in the suppression of any statements made after the subject was taken into custody. It does not automatically dismiss the state's case.

 

[CdwJava]

That is incorrect. Miranda rights MUST be read while/during/before the arrest. Police cannot assume that every criminal knows their rights.

Wrong.

TWO things must be present for Miranda to apply: Custody (equal to that of a custodial arrest and not a detention) AND interrogation. The vast majority of arrests we make do NOT require Miranda.

There have been MANY cases that were thrown out of court JUST BECAUSE of the fact that their rights had not been stated at the time of arrest.

Name one case where an arrest was tossed because Miranda was not read at or before an arrest even if interrogation was not present. Two things must be present ... arrest and interrogation. All because I slap the cuffs on someone does not mean that I have to Mirandize them. If I want to interview/interrogate them after the arrest, then I Do have to Mirandize.

- Carl

 

[laurenamber]

Don't worry guys, Lauren is just another troll who has return to spew havoc with her "insightful" opinion.

She won't be here long.

Certainly not as long as you...hehehe