Theft Under $500 Miranda Rights Issue

[nikolasmor]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

I have been charged with theft under $500.00 for a a wallet being missing from the lost and found in a retail store. The investigating officer obtained the store video tape through a non-management store employee and later asked me to come out to his car "just to talk" He is now using the statements I made against me after being cohersing the answers out of that he wanted. I was never mirandized or informed that I was even a suspect. Can my statements be used against me in court? He has already used them to achieve a warrant. The exact conversation in question went as follows
Officer asks me to come outside to "talk"
He asks me what I did with the wallet after I attempted to look him up in the whitepages
I told him that I put it in the safe.
He says "What if I we're to tell you that the video doesn't show you putting it in the safe?"
I said "I don't know because I put it in the safe"
"But what if I tell you it doesn't show that?"
"I don't know because that's what I did with it"
"But what if I tell you it doesn't show that?"
"It has to because thats what I did with it"
"But what if I tell you it doesn't show that?"
Me at this point fustrated with his 3 year old "why, why why " form of questioning said the following
"I guess if it doesn't show it then I COULDN'T have, but I'm pretty darn sure that I put it in the safe"
He then takes this and turns it around on me saying that I contradicted myself and admitting that I lied when I said I put in the safe.

Anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Florid-aise]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

I have been charged with theft under $500.00 for a a wallet being missing from the lost and found in a retail store. The investigating officer obtained the store video tape through a non-management store employee and later asked me to come out to his car "just to talk" He is now using the statements I made against me after being cohersing the answers out of that he wanted. I was never mirandized or informed that I was even a suspect. Can my statements be used against me in court? He has already used them to achieve a warrant. The exact conversation in question went as follows
Officer asks me to come outside to "talk"
He asks me what I did with the wallet after I attempted to look him up in the whitepages
I told him that I put it in the safe.
He says "What if I we're to tell you that the video doesn't show you putting it in the safe?"
I said "I don't know because I put it in the safe"
"But what if I tell you it doesn't show that?"
"I don't know because that's what I did with it"
"But what if I tell you it doesn't show that?"
"It has to because thats what I did with it"
"But what if I tell you it doesn't show that?"
Me at this point fustrated with his 3 year old "why, why why " form of questioning said the following
"I guess if it doesn't show it then I COULDN'T have, but I'm pretty darn sure that I put it in the safe"
He then takes this and turns it around on me saying that I contradicted myself and admitting that I lied when I said I put in the safe.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Because you went voluntarily of your own free will outside to speak with the officer, your statements were freely made. No Miranda Warning was required because you were not in custody.

Does this same videotape also show that you placed this wallet in your own pocket or otherwise show you NOT placing it in the safe as you reported that you did?

 

[CdwJava]

Miranda requires both custody (as in an arrest) and interrogation. From what you wrote, custody was not present. You may have been detained, but this is not the same as "custody" for purposes of Miranda.

However, MD may have a stricter standard, and only an attorney can say with greater certainty.

- Carl

 

[nikolasmor]

Because you went voluntarily of your own free will outside to speak with the officer, your statements were freely made. No Miranda Warning was required because you were not in custody.

Does this same videotape also show that you placed this wallet in your own pocket or otherwise show you NOT placing it in the safe as you reported that you did?

The video showed me NOT placing the wallet in the safe according to the officer, but it did not show me putting it in my pocket or otherwise touching it after the fact(which means I must have left it next to the computer monitor)

 

[seniorjudge]

The video showed me NOT placing the wallet in the safe according to the officer, but it did not show me putting it in my pocket or otherwise touching it after the fact(which means I must have left it next to the computer monitor)

This is pretty sloppy police work, if you ask me, but you could've walked away at any time. An arrest means you could not walk away. Miranda only applies when you have been arrested.

However, I would certainly have my lawyer file a motion to exclude this conversation.

That's not the only evidence they have, so if it gets excluded, you still have big problems.

 

[nikolasmor]

Yeah, just the video tape that shows me NOT stealing something lol

 

[nikolasmor]

This is pretty sloppy police work, if you ask me, but you could've walked away at any time. An arrest means you could not walk away. Miranda only applies when you have been arrested.

However, I would certainly have my lawyer file a motion to exclude this conversation.

That's not the only evidence they have, so if it gets excluded, you still have big problems.

On what grounds can the conversation be filed for dismissal?

 

[seniorjudge]

On what grounds can the conversation be filed for dismissal?

I have no idea what this question means.

 

[nikolasmor]

I have no idea what this question means.

For exactly what reason can I ask for the conversation to be removed from the case

 

[seniorjudge]

For exactly what reason can I ask for the conversation to be removed from the case

Originally Posted by seniorjudge
This is pretty sloppy police work, if you ask me, but you could've walked away at any time. An arrest means you could not walk away. Miranda only applies when you have been arrested.

However, I would certainly have my lawyer file a motion to exclude this conversation.

That's not the only evidence they have, so if it gets excluded, you still have big problems.

 

[nikolasmor]

I understand that, but was just trying to figure out the legal reason or term for having the conversation thrown out. Sorry to be a newb but I've never been in trouble like this before and its all kind of new to me.

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: I understand that, but was just trying to figure out the legal reason or term for having the conversation thrown out.

A: Your lawyer would have to prove that the conversation (if even offered as evidence) was gained illegally in violation of your 5th and 6th Amendment (read them) privileges. If the conversation was not allowed as evidence, there still may be other evidence that would convict you.

 

[nikolasmor]

It ended up with a verdict of Nolle Prosequi. I understand the basics of this but can anyone go into more detail on it? Are there any reproccutions I should watch out for?

 

[seniorjudge]

It ended up with a verdict of Nolle Prosequi. I understand the basics of this but can anyone go into more detail on it? Are there any reproccutions I should watch out for?

It means the government decided not to prosecute. I don't know about any reprecussions. Is there a specific question?

Definitions of NOLLE PROSEQUI on the Web:

Lat. A formal entry upon the record by the prosecuting officer in a criminal action, by which he declares that he "will no further prosecute" the case, either as to some of the defendants, or altogether. Commonly called "nol Pros".
www.co.shelby.tn.us/county_gov/court_clerks/criminal_court/glossary.html

A formal entry upon the record by the plaintiff in a civil suit, or the prosecuting officer in a criminal case, declaring the case will not be prosecuted.
www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mc/judicial/circuit/glossary/glossary.html

A formal entry upon the record by the plaintiff in a civil suit, or the prosecuting officer in a criminal case, by which he declares that he "will no further prosecute" the case.
www.unt.edu/cjus/Course_Pages/glossary.htm

A formal entry upon the record, by the a plaintiff in a civil suit, or, more commonly, by the prosecuting attorney in a criminal action, by which he declares that he "will no further prosecute" the case, either as to some of the defendants, or altogether. The voluntary withdrawal by the prosecuting attorney of present proceedings on a criminal charge.
www.the3rdjudicialdistrict.com/glossary.htm

Decision by a prosecutor not to go forward with charging a crime. It translates "I do not choose to prosecute." Also loosely called nolle pros.
www.aoc.state.nc.us/district15b/chatham/Glossary.htm

unwilling to prosecute
general.rau.ac.za/lawlibrary/html/glossary_latin.asp

an entry in the court record to the effect that the plaintiff or prosecutor will not proceed
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

declare that a legal case will not be prosecuted
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

 

[nikolasmor]

Wow, guess that means no. I am now working on getting it exsponged(sp???) I guess that fact that I was even charged would be the only thing on there, and the outcome