what if you get arrested and the police don't read you the miranda right?

Answer 1

The police aren't required to mirandize you period. However, if they don't then nothing you say or do can be used against you.

Answer 2

The arrest is still good, but not everything you say to them can be used against you in a court of law.

But actually, it is kind of complicated. First of all, what is an arrest? Miranda is implicated whenever there is an arrest or deprivation of freedom of movement in any significant way. So they don't necessarily have to take you down to the station. But a traffic stop doesn't cut it as an arrest, but would be a detention (which would implicate the 4th Amendment prohibition against search and seizure). An arrest for a crime when they take you down to jail certainly implicates Miranda.

Note that interrogation by an officer when you are not under arrest doesn't implicate Miranda. So if the cop calls you on the phone and interrogates you without Miranda warnings, too bad. Additionally, a trick cops like to use is to tell you that you are free to leave. If you are free to leave, Miranda isn't implicated. Note that whether you are free to leave or not is an objective test. The question is not whether you think you are free to leave. The question is whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would be free to leave. In other words, a judge decides.

Then there has to be interrogation by an officer. Interrogation by a school official or some other non-law enforcement official doesn't cut it. I won a case once by getting a confession kicked out when the school official kept a student waiting for 2 hours only to be interrogated by a cop. Had the school official done the interrogation, I would have lost, but he let the cop do it. The DA realized that the confession was bad and dropped the case (it didn't help that the "victim" was not the best kid in the world either).

Interrogation means express questioning. So if you blurt out a confession without any express questioning, Miranda isn't implicated. So the cop can be shooting the breeze with you and you change the subject and confess or say something incriminating, Miranda isn't implicated. You have to be under interrogation.

Then the officer needs to obtain your knowing and intelligent waiver of your rights. That means that you can argue that being totally intoxicated (not just tipsy) may cause you to give an improper waiver. Someone who is insane

The waiver must be voluntary. Torture doesn't cut it. Nor does some other type of psychological extortion.

That being said, cops can and, more often than not, will lie to you. Cops have so many psychological tricks up their sleeves that you can't believe it. They don't have to shine a light in your eyes or perform water torture or put a gun to your head. The best one I've seen is where two suspects are separated. The cop tells one that his buddy just totally confessed and implicated the person being interrogated. The cop also tells the suspect that the judge will go easier on the suspect if the suspect just confesses. This works like a charm and is totally legal and constitutional. Fear and uncertainty work wonders.

I've even seen it done when the cop sounded like he was lying. He wasn't slick enough. But the poor kid bought it anyone.

The terrible thing is that confessing does not make the judge go easier on you. 60% of crimes (approximately) are solved by confession. Another 30% or solved by a fortuitous search. I have never seen a judge go easy on someone because he confessed. If the judge went easy on someone because he confessed, he have to go easy on almost everyone. It's totally bogus.

Also, just so you know, there are numerous exceptions, too, to the Miranda law. The best thing to do is tell the cop that you wish to remain silent and that you with to speak with an attorney. Trying to reason with the cop and explain what occurred is the worst thing you can do. The cop knows that people try to do this and encourages it. After you try to explain what occurred, he arrests you anyway, so whether you explain yourself or not, you are going to go to jail anyway. And since you are going to go to jail anyway, it is better not to say anything, because maybe you won't get convicted (as most convictions are based on confessions) in the end. Therefore, always keep quiet when speaking with a cop.

Answer 3

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the robbery, and to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination.
The case, Miranda v. Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was overthrown. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights. The case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years. He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to excercise his right to remain silent, and was released. ********* what irony ************* hahahahaha



Step #1 - Was the person "in custody"?
Was there a formal arrest?


If yes — Step #2
If no — Analyze functional equivalent at Step #1(b)


If there was no formal arrent, would a reasonable suspect in the same situation have believed he or she was not free to leave?


If yes — Step #2
If no — No custody; Miranda does not apply

Step #2 - If the person was in custody, was the person "interrogated" by an official?
Given the officer's knowledge of the suspect, did the officer know his or her questions or statements were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?


If yes — Miranda applies
If no — Analyze whether the officer should have known at Step #2(b)


Would a "resonable officer" under the same circumstance and with the same knowledge of the suspect have known that an incriminating response was reasonably likely?


If yes — Miranda applies
If no — Miranda does not apply
**NOTE: The words "reasonable" and "reasonably" indicate that an objective standard is being used.**

In the United States, one of the ways that the judicial branch checks the executive branch is through the exclusionary rule. Under this policy, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court. While this applies primarily to Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure, it also applies to the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. This means that if the police fail to inform a suspect of his or her right to remain silent, and the suspect confesses, the confession cannot be introduced as evidence in the suspect's trial.
There has been a great deal of controversy over this, so in recent years, the Courts have relaxed the standard a bit. For instance, courts now apply what is known as the "good faith" exception. Under this standard, if police believed, for instance, that a search warrant was legal, but later found out that it was technically flawed, the evidence obtained in the search would still be admissible.

In many democratic nations, violations of police procedure are handled quite differently. For example, in England, if the police violate criminal procedure, they are reprimanded; they might be punished or sued. However, the illegally obtained evidence is still admissible in court.

Answer 4

Then you've got due process problems. The so-called "Miranda Rights" are the traditional way for arresting police officers to ensure that the people they arrest receive due process of law as required by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The standard line was adopted after a Supreme Court ruling that held that arrestees had the right under the Constitution to be informed of their legal rights.

Depending on the facts of the case, this could make things you say inadmissible, or render the whole arrest invalid. But judges are reasonable people, and if not reading you your rights hasn't hurt you in any way, it might not make any difference at all. Furthermore, if the police do fail to read you your rights but you do not raise objection at trial, you may not appeal on those grounds.

Answer 5

Miranda only applies after you have been arrested and it only applies if the officer wants to ask you questions about the crime itself. He can still ask you your name, DOB, and any other personal information he needs to fill out his arrest and booking paperwork, and if you refuse, you can have an additional charge for obstruction of justice. Also, by not informing you of your Miranda, and I say informing because it does not have to be read off any card or sheet of paper, the officer may sometimes gather information on a voluntary basis...called utterance. Whatever you say on your own about the crime after you've been arrested can, and will, be used in court. Also, when we arrest two persons for a crime, we often place them into the same patrol car, where your conversation is being recorded. We often put you there, and exit the car ourselves to complete paper work or search your vehicle. We can then listen to the tape at a later time and use what you've said in court. After all, the police were not aksing you questions...it's just two arrestees talking to each other about specific details of the crime.

Answer 6

Nothing. You don't have to be read your rights when arrested, it is just prior to questioning. However, most officers question immediately after an arrest and mirandize you on scene. If you choose to talk about it and the officer has not asked you a question, it can be used in court.

Answer 7

the Miranda rights apply only to custodial questioning does not mean the arrest is invalid

Answer 8

I have seen police not read people there rights an a juge read them in court,but a good police is going to read you the miranda

Answer 9

You are not given your rights when you were arrested, you get the rights given before you are questioned.

If they don't need to question you, for example catch you with all the stolen evidence in your pockets, it would be possible to be arrested , tried in in court and convicted without ever hearing your rights read.

Answer 10

It depends. The police dont have to read you your rights unless they are going to question you. If they are going to question you, and dont read you your rights, then any evidence they get from what you have said is imadmissable