Rights not being read! Help!?

Hey..im being prosecuted for possesion with delivery or something like that..but the thing is, when the detective came to my house the first time i was not arrested or read my rights..i wrote down that i did give the person the drugs tho. The detective issued a warrent for me then i turned myself in and was handcuffed and booked but i was never read my right during all of this...can this case be dropped due to me not being read my rights? The only thing that was said was from the judge and he said i have the right to an atorney and i have the right to represent myself in court...advice please?? I live in michigan.

slipknottkills said:

can this case be dropped due to me not being read my rights?

Click to expand...

No, the officer was not required to read you your rights.

slipknottkills said:

can this case be dropped due to me not being read my rights?

Click to expand...

Can it?? Of course it can. Will it?? Based on your post, no. You have been watching too much television. The Miranda is required prior to any pertinent questioning of a suspect... where the suspect may provide answers to an interrogation or interview BEFORE a suspect has been taken into custody.

Based on what you have written, no. Miranda requires custody plus interrogation. Custody did not occur.

LawGirl10 said:

Miranda requires custody plus interrogation.

Click to expand...

WRONG!!
You need to go back and review your Miranda rulings and opinions.
Start with Oregon v. Mathiason (1977), where the court suggested that there may be times, other than during an interrogation in the jail or police station, when Miranda should be given. Specifically the court said:
"Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime."

Also:
A court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest." California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)

JETX said:

WRONG!!
You need to go back and review your Miranda rulings and opinions.
Start with Oregon v. Mathiason (1977), where the court suggested that there may be times, other than during an interrogation in the jail or police station, when Miranda should be given. Specifically the court said:
"Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime."

Also:
A court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest." California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983)

Click to expand...

Disregard this, see below.

Wrong, that is only if that coercive aspect is the equivalent of custody. Custody doesn't always have to be arrest. I didn't say arrest. I said custody plus interrogation. Interrogative questioning can occur in a non-coercive environment and not require Miranda (suspect was ASKED to come to the police station for questioning, agreed and was not arrested OR suspect is interviewed at his home or office in a non-coercive environment.........this does not require Miranda even if it is interrogation and even if it does ultimately later result in arrest). Basically, an officer can walk up to you on the street, ask to speak to you in your home/office, etc. and interrogate the hell out of you, design it to get incriminating responses and he doesn't have to give you Miranda as long as it was not the equivalent of a formal arrest or custody.

You are taking out only one part of Oregon and missing the point that the court recognized (and see later rulings) that CUSTODY may occur in other situations that is not exactly a formal arrest but is equivalent enough to an arrest (not free to leave) that Miranda is required. It is not required just because it occurs in a coercive environment. Your cite to the California case just reiterates what I already said.

Also, why are you even citing Oregon v. Mathiason?

Here is the reasoning of that case.

In that case "D was a parolee suspected of a burglary. At the request of police, D agreed to come to the police station, where he was questioned in the absence of Miranda warnings, in an office with the door closed. A reviewing court found that the questioning took place in a coervice environment....The U.S. SUPREME COURT held, that, on these facts, Miranda warnings were NOT required because D was not in custody during the interview: prior to questioning he was told he was not under arrest, and the left the station after questioning. According to the Mathiason court, 'such a non-custodial situation is not converted to one in which Miranda applies simply because a reviewing court concludes that...the questioning took place in a coercive environment.' " Cited from Understanding Criminal Procedure, third edition by Joshua Dressler. Page 482-483.

Lawgirl is absolutely right. The police do not have to give you Miranda warnings unless they have you in custody and are interrogating you to get incriminating information. That is Crim Pro 1A.

calatty said:

Lawgirl is absolutely right. The police do not have to give you Miranda warnings unless they have you in custody and are interrogating you to get incriminating information. That is Crim Pro 1A.

Click to expand...

Why else would police be interrogating you? To get your lunch order?