MIRANDA WARNINGS; For Public Consumption

[CdwJava]

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.

Good! You must mean the parts where the "custody" portion of Miranda requires restraints equivalent to that of a custodial arrest, and NOT (as you previously mentioned) simply the existance of probable cause.

Glad to see you agree!

- Carl

 

[JOHN BUCKNER]

I was not aware that I had a problem...Do you have a problem?
Would you not agree that custody and interrogation are the two elements for Miranda?

We now have case Law at least where I come from that indicates Miranda is not required upon F.S.T's It would seem to me that what you indicate provides a lot more confusion then answer to a question that is somewhat simple. I have to agree with Carl and cite the law. You have also indicated some rather less than desirable remarkes ragarding Police and testimony. I for one have testified in court and have done so for over 18 years. I have nothing to prove. Just simply stating my point of view as you are as a Lawyer.

Great talking with you.

 

[CdwJava]

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.

Actually, I made NO reference to a "Wade Hearing" as I have no idea what what a "Wade Hearing" is.

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

I guess so. And what is a "corporeal identification"? The identification of a spirit?

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

If you say so.

As neither apply to motions or actions that the police actively initiate, there is no need for me to know the terms.

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?"

Hah! Oh ... dunno ... maybe it's the 14 years of doing the job - as a road dog, investigator, supervisor, manager, and trainer. What I did before life as a cop I'll leave as a mystery for now.

And what's your experience in the field of law or law enforcement? It sure doesn't include expertise on Miranda.


- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

I was not aware that I had a problem...Do you have a problem?
Would you not agree that custody and interrogation are the two elements for Miranda?

We now have case Law at least where I come from that indicates Miranda is not required upon F.S.T's It would seem to me that what you indicate provides a lot more confusion then answer to a question that is somewhat simple. I have to agree with Carl and cite the law. You have also indicated some rather less than desirable remarkes ragarding Police and testimony. I for one have testified in court and have done so for over 18 years. I have nothing to prove. Just simply stating my point of view as you are as a Lawyer.

Great talking with you.

I'm going to go out on a short limb and say that he's not a lawyer.

 

[JOHN BUCKNER]

Oh Yeah, Hey Carl we all run around and field train the young rookies to not have a clue as to what the hell Miranda is. I mean why would we need it anyway. case law does not seem to apply. Just ask legal Counsel, he will tell you. He wants to use all this mumbo jumbo to sound like we are totally off key. Put this guy in a patrol car for a week and see how reality sets in.

I don't know it seems pretty clear to me.I don't play an attorney on T.V. so why would this guy play a cop or investigator on the net.

Hey by the way Where was that citation you asked for Carl? Practicing what? and what State?

 

[conflix]

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.

I don't know what all you people are getting excited over.

The above quote is completely accurate and consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in regard to Miranda.

When the police question someone who is not in custody they have no duty to read him Miranda.

Once the person being questioned makes a statement that gives the police probable cause that he committed an offense, the person making the statement is no longer free to leave, therefore he is in custody.

And as all of you full well know, a person in custody cannot be questioned without first being issued Miranda warnings.

Pretty simple concept, wouldn't you agree?

 

[CdwJava]

The above quote is completely accurate and consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in regard to Miranda.

Care to cite the pertinent USSC ruling where "probable cause" is equated with "custody"?

When the police question someone who is not in custody they have no duty to read him Miranda.

True enough.

Once the person being questioned makes a statement that gives the police probable cause that he committed an offense, the person making the statement is no longer free to leave, therefore he is in custody.

And where is THIS written? Certainly not in any case law I have read. Though I am open for enlightenment.

Probable cause may exist to make an arrest, but having probable cause does not mean that an arrest must be made. In fact - at least in my state - there are only a couple of "shall arrest" statutes.


- Carl

 

[JOHN BUCKNER]

Well I would tend to agree counsel. However, the gray area is indeed F.S.T.'s of course once they are placing you under arrest then Miaranda applies. Would you too not agree that during F.S.T's that MIranda is not required....And why...Custody. You are not required to conduct F.S.T's.

While person or person's may believe that you are detained they are not under arrest and not required to conduct the field sobriety tests.

Reality is what a person may or may not believe. But, The Law may be something totally on a different level. I would suggest that we are closing in on the true concept of Miranda.

My feeling is that the statements made prior to this page of the thread were not something that was called for and the thought that officers are trained to tell less than the truth burns my ass. So, We will agree to disagree on that topic. and say goodnight.

I wish you well counsel.We shall meet again

 

[LawGirl10]

"Once the person being questioned makes a statement that gives the police probable cause that he committed an offense, the person making the statement is no longer free to leave, therefore he is in custody."

Please cite a case. I have never heard of this. This is entirely inconsistent with the court's rulings on station house questioning where the suspect comes in voluntarily or any situation where there is not custody, even if the questions are desigined to get an incriminating response.

 

[conflix]

Probable cause may exist to make an arrest, but having probable cause does not mean that an arrest must be made. In fact - at least in my state - there are only a couple of "shall arrest" statutes.

- Carl

Carl, I believe you wrote that when a person being questioned by the police admits he committed an offense, the police in your state do not necessarily have to arrest the person.

Am I correctly interpreting your comment?

If I am correct, would you please name a few of the offenses you believe a person can confess to police he committed without being charged with the offenses?

As an aside, does the legislature in your state empower police officers to use discretion when deciding who should be arrested for “crimes” and “violations” defined in your state’s criminal lawbook?

 

[conflix]

My feeling is that the statements made prior to this page of the thread were not something that was called for and the thought that officers are trained to tell less than the truth burns my ass.

I wrote the police are trained to provide direct responses to direct questions….I also wrote that an attorney who knows how to question police officers should be hired if you want effective counsel.

I wish you well counsel.We shall meet again

Please do not disrespect me by suggesting I am an attorney.

 

[conflix]

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?

Aren’t you the same BelizeBreeze who wrote, “And you are seriously deluded. The police are under no obligation to stop questioning you after being informed that you request an attorney.”

 

[conflix]

Please cite a case. I have never heard of this. This is entirely inconsistent with the court's rulings on station house questioning where the suspect comes in voluntarily….

Conflix, you know not of what you speak.

….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.

Please consider this:

Det. Ortiz is questioning a person he asked to come to the station house to make a statement about a burglary the detective is investigating. During the questioning the person implicates himself as a participant in the burglary.

Question #1: Under routine circumstances, after implicating himself in the burglary, is the person being questioned by Det Ortiz free to leave the station house?

Question #2: If you agree he is not free to leave, then will you agree he is in custody from the moment he implicated himself?

Question #3: If you agree he is in custody at the moment he implicated himself in the burglary, will you agree Det Ortiz should stop his interview at that moment and inform the person he is being plcaed under arrest for burglary?

Would you also agree that after arresting the burglary suspect, Det Ortiz should read the suspect Miranda warnings and continue the questioning if the suspect agrees to continue answering questions?

 

[LawGirl10]

Please consider this:

Det. Ortiz is questioning a person he asked to come to the station house to make a statement about a burglary the detective is investigating. During the questioning the person implicates himself as a participant in the burglary.

Question #1: Under routine circumstances, after implicating himself in the burglary, is the person being questioned by Det Ortiz free to leave the station house?

Question #2: If you agree he is not free to leave, then will you agree he is in custody from the moment he implicated himself?

Question #3: If you agree he is in custody at the moment he implicated himself in the burglary, will you agree Det Ortiz should stop his interview at that moment and inform the person he is being plcaed under arrest for burglary?

Would you also agree that after arresting the burglary suspect, Det Ortiz should read the suspect Miranda warnings and continue the questioning if the suspect agrees to continue answering questions?

Answer to question #1: often times, yes, they are free to leave. Police routinely go "long form" on a charge and do not arrest on site. Therefore, there is no point in addressing the rest of your questions.


Your original postings were not about custodial situations. You implied that Miranda is required WHENEVER the police interrogate a suspect and that suspect gives them incriminating responses. That is just not true. You made no distinction between custody and non-custody, which is what everyone was calling you on. If you made a mistake and didn't make it clear exactly which situation you were referring to, admit it and that is fine. But, as to your original statement, I requested that you cite a case for the exact statement you made.

And, once again, that statement was: "Once the person being questioned makes a statement that gives the police probable cause that he committed an offense, the person making the statement is no longer free to leave, therefore he is in custody."

 

[BelizeBreeze]

and of course, the pressing question that has yet to be answered is:

Why is everyone still wasting time doing this guy's homework?