• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

MIRANDA WARNINGS; For Public Consumption

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

conflix

Member
kanedagod said:
When the went to put me in the car the officer said 'You understand your under arrest for DUI at this time' and i said 'yes' but he never read me my Miranda Rights. Did he have to?
The police have no duty to issue Miranda warnings unless they have determined there is probable cause to arrest you.

At the exact point in time the police determine there is probable cause to arrest you, THEY HAVE TO STOP QUESTIONING YOU and read you Miranda warnings before they can lawfully continue questioning you.

So in your case if the police are going to introduce statements made by you, against you, a good attorney who knows how to question police officers can establish the time line of the questioning and learn if the police acted in accordance with the law.

I cannot stress how important it is to hire an attorney who is well acquainted with the "art of questioning law enforcement officials."

When offering testimony in court, police officers are trained to DIRECTLY ANSWER the question being posed to them by either the defense counsel or prosecutor.

As a result of this training, police officers will tailor their responses to specifically address the question being posed to them. Because of this training, if an attorney does not ask the officer specific questions, the truth may never come out. And sadly there are officers who for various reasons, do not want the truth to come out. The primary reason a police officer would withhold the truth is because he does not want to expose deficiencies in his knowledge of the law or his training. ***ego***

You attorney should also be well versed in dealing with police officers who employ the "art of deception."

The art of police deception is far too complicated for me to discuss at this time. Yet I will tell you it's roots lie in the authority granted the police by the US Supreme Court.

When questioning suspects or prisoners, the Supreme Court permits officers to lie, deceive and use trickery. Unfortunately, there are police officers who believe the Supreme Court ruling also applies when they are testifying in court.

Personally, if the police ever want to question me about anything other than an alleged traffic infraction they detained me for, I have nothing to say to them.

If the police tell me they are going to arrest me if I don’t answer their questions I politely inform them, “Officers, I defer to your authority and I will obey your orders, yet I would like to speak with an attorney before answering any of your questions.”

Some people reading my last comment will interpret my attitude as being disrespectful or contemptuous toward the law. When quite the opposite is the truth. I am an AMERICAN citizen and the law of our land states I have a right to remain silent. By not responding to the officers who are attempting to question me, I am acting in a perfectly lawful manner.
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
conflix said:
The police have no duty to issue Miranda warnings unless they have determined there is probable cause to arrest you.

At the exact point in time the police determine there is probable cause to arrest you, THEY HAVE TO STOP QUESTIONING YOU and read you Miranda warnings before they can lawfully continue questioning you.
Actually, I think you are slightly overstating it. As a point of clarification, Miranda actually requires custody and interrogation - not simply "probable cause". Probable cause may exist, but so long as custody does not, then Miranda does not generally apply.

The exception, of course, would be if the measure of "force" used to maintain the detention were equivalent to a custodial arrest.

And there is ample case law that says that the subjective belief of the officer is not relative to the issue of Miranda.

- Carl
 

Bravo8

Member
Conflix, you know not of what you speak.

The requirment for Miranda applies during custody and interrogation. Custody is a formal arrest or the totality of the circumstances that amount to the functional equivalent of arrest. Would the totality of the circumstances cause a reasonable person to believe they were under arrest? That is what needs to be considered.

Excited utterances are permissible in the absence of Miranda. Additionally, the police may continue to question a defendant after arrest if the questions are not of an interogative nature.

No one is questioning your right to refuse to answer questions, except in specific exceptions (such as identifying yourself, etc). Your assertion that Miranda must be read when the police decide to arrest is incorrect. The mere existence of PC for an arrest does not require Miranda.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
conflix said:
You are wrong.
And you are seriously deluded. The police are under no obligation to stop questioning you after being informed that you request an attorney. Simply put, nothing you have said has any semblence of Legal foundation.

So, either come back here with your bar card number, your state license number or anything else that would prove you are qualified to practice law and have an understanding of the implications of your diatribe. :rolleyes:
 

conflix

Member
BelizeBreeze said:
And you are seriously deluded. The police are under no obligation to stop questioning you after being informed that you request an attorney.
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.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
conflix said:
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.
And since you did not address my statement but decided to talk around it, what does that say about your ability to read? Again, what is your legal training? Where are you licensed to practice law? Where did you attend law school?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
conflix said:
You are wrong.
Nope. And if I am wrong, then so is the USSC.

From CPOLS:

No Miranda custody to question a suspect at the scene, even though you had probable cause to arrest him from the moment you first saw him. (Valdivia (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 657.).

Understand, however, that both "custody" and "interrogation" must co- exist, at the same time, before you have to worry about the Miranda decision. (Edwards (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 481-482; Mathis (1968) 391 U.S. 1, 5; Joseph R. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 954, 960-961.) "Absent 'custodial interrogation,' Miranda simply does not come into play." (Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 648; Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 732.) This means, among other things, that neither Miranda right (silence or counsel) can be asserted "anticipatorily," i.e., before both "custody" and "interrogation" exist. (McNeil (1991) 501 U.S. 171, 182, fn. 3; Calderon (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 766, 770; Avila (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 416, 418, 422; Beltran (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 425, 431.)

In order to obtain a statement that will be admissible at trial to prove guilt, Miranda advisements must be given only if the person about to be questioned is in "custody." (Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 197; Spears (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1, 23.) "Custody" exists for Miranda purposes when two requirements are met:

- the suspect must in fact have been formally arrested or had his freedom restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest--see Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318; Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Krantz (9th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 961, 963; Esqueda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1481; Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401; and

- the suspect must personally be aware of this lack of freedom, or reasonably believe that it exists. (Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Green (1985) 40 Cal.3d 126, 133-134; Mazza (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 836; Valdivia (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 657; Breault (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 125.)

In the words of the United States Supreme Court, "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." (Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 322, quoting from Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Joseph R. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 954, 960.)

Furthermore, this question must be assessed objectively, which means two things. First, custody is based on how a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would perceive his or her own circumstances. Second, in making a custody determination, officers are only expected to be aware of, and take into account, objectively apparent facts. Officers are not expected to anticipate the “frailties or idiosyncrasies of every person whom they question.” (Berkemer (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442, fn. 2.)


Do you need more?

- Carl
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
conflix said:
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.
True.


However, any statements made up until that point during the interrogation may be used in court.
I presume you meant to say that statements obtained prior can NOT be used in court. If so, then you are correct provided that custody had also existed thus invoking a Miranda situation.

- Carl
 
Carl, a number of us have already told this guy the two elements for Miranda. You are right.. I too had pointed out the Miranda rule...it is clear, Custody and interrogation. How much more confusing can someone make something.I think we know who this Guy is. Did he change his name?/CUSTODY and INTERROGATION.

Dont' give him the satisfaction Carl.
 

conflix

Member
CdwJava said:
Nope. And if I am wrong, then so is the USSC.
- Carl
You can cut and paste all day long yet the fact remains that when the police are questioning a suspect and develop probable cause during the questioning, the suspect is no longer free to go…therefore he is in custody and the questioning must stop so the police can issue Miranda warnings.

Obviously you don’t much have much experience, if any, testifying at Wade hearings.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
conflix said:
You can cut and paste all day long yet the fact remains that when the police are questioning a suspect and develop probable cause during the questioning, the suspect is no longer free to go…therefore he is in custody and the questioning must stop so the police can issue Miranda warnings.

Obviously you don’t much have much experience, if any, testifying at Wade hearings.
Uh ... yeah ... can you post your legal citations on this, please?

- Carl
 

conflix

Member
CdwJava said:
Uh ... yeah ... can you post your legal citations on this, please?

- Carl
In that you have ALREADY posted to this thread the legal references to support my statements, there is no need for me to post them.
 

conflix

Member
JOHN BUCKNER said:
Carl, a number of us have already told this guy the two elements for Miranda. You are right.. I too had pointed out the
Miranda rule...it is clear, Custody and interrogation. How much more confusing can someone make something.I think we know who this Guy is. Did he change his name?/CUSTODY and INTERROGATION.

Dont' give him the satisfaction Carl.
I am not sure what your problem is. Are you saying that when the police are questioning a suspect, and the suspect makes a statement that gives the police probable cause to arrest him, the police can continue questioning the prisoner without giving him Miranda warnings?
 

conflix

Member
conflix said:
Obviously you don’t much have much experience, if any, testifying at Wade hearings.
Carl, if you truly did have any experience in criminal court, you would have realized I made a mistake by referring to a Wade hearing when discussing "statements" made by defendants.

Obviously you are unaware Wade hearings are conducted to discuss the procedures used by police in making corporeal identifications.

Huntley hearings are conducted to determine if statements made by defendants are admissible in court.

The fact that you do not know the difference between Wade and Huntley hearings leads me to ask, "Other than reading law related writings on the Internet, what real experience do you have in the field of law enforcement?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top