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 said: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
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.mgomez41 said:thanx so basically if my statements where taken before i was arrested they can still use them in court right
I am glad to see you did some research and learned my assertions in the other thread are/were in fact, founded.LawGirl10 said: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.LawGirl10 said: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.
From the facts presented, it was.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.
BelizeBreeze said: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.
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.conflix said:I am glad to see you did some research and learned my assertions in the other thread are/were in fact, founded.
http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.htmlmgomez41 said: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
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.mgomez41 said: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
Yeah, I still get a kick out of that.CdwJava said:Remember also that Conflix asserts that "probable cause" equals "custody" for Miranda purposes.
- Carl
my attorney agrees with youCdwJava said: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