conflix said:
Miss, I am going to disagree with you. I am sure every sworn police officer on this board cringed when they read your response to my question regarding Det. Ortiz' burglary investigation.
Actually, I highly doubt it. Anyone who has actually done the job knows exactly what I am talking about and why police officers choose to do it. There are tactical and practical reasons for doing so.
You can disagree all you want. Find out what you are talking about first and then get back with me, it happens all the time. I did it routinely depending on the type of the crime. Investigators I worked with routinely did it. It depends on the strength of your evidence at the time, where you are at in your investigation and the seriousness of the crime. Officers have discretion on who they arrest and it is ridiculous to suggest they think everyone needs to be arrested on-site for every crime they are investigating. Not every crime is of the same magnitude. Different techniques often need to be used with different criminals.
It is also used as a tactical advantage for the police. I just had this discussion with my Advanced Crim Pro law professor a few weeks ago. He is a senior prosecutor in a major U.S. city. We discussed this point exactly and my response was exactly in line with his. Often times, the suspect is free to leave. Doing it that way is often designed to get around Miranda. Bring them in by getting them to agree to be interviewed (or interview them at thier home or any other place that they agree to), don't Mirandize them, but conduct an interrogation designed to elicit incriminating information, get the confession and then walk away. File your report with the Prosecutor's office, use the confession that was obtained without Miranda: guess what, in that situation, you will not lose a 5th Amendment Miranda challenge.
In addition, try reading Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) before you continue spouting off. Exact same facts as you "proposed" when you started changing things around with your little example, the suspect was asked to come to the station for questioining, not Mirandized, he confessed and he was released. He was LATER arrested and they used his confession against him. The Court ruled that Miranda was not required because he was not in custody at the time of questioning (or even after the incriminiating statement) and he was RELEASED after the questioning.
If you want to disagree with how the law works that is fine, but it is irrresponsible to insist that the law is a specific way when it clearly (if you took the time to read case law or understand how it actually works) is not.
