Is it lawful for police to question a person when they are drunk and use that what the drunk said as facts in a court of law?
2006-12-15 06:51:59 · 16 answers · asked by draymond31 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
y not....they r cops
2006-12-15 08:57:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
There are three things that must be satisfied for a statement to be admissible in court (here in Canada)
1. It must be voluntary (given without threats or favours)
2. It must not breach the person's rights outlined in the charter of rights and freedoms (they must be told that they can talk to a lawyer and that they can remain silent)
3. The person must have an operating mind.
This could mean that a drunk person's statement could be thrown out if they were too drunk to understand the cautions and the questions. Almost all statements these days are videotaped. The police probably asked the person a series of questions first to test the "operating mind" to see if they understand the question and answer appropriately. If they are answering well and they have spoken to a lawyer their answer could be admitted into evidence. The judge can view the tape to see if the person seemed to know what was going on and could understand the questions they were being asked.
2006-12-15 11:11:29 · answer #2 · answered by joeanonymous 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, since being drunk isn't illegal, (it's just what you do WHEN you are drunk that can easily become an illegal action), it seems to follow that even drunk people are able (???) to give up their miranda-granted right NOT to speak, and are told anything they can or do say can and will be used against them in a court of law--so I'm pretty certain it could--regardless of state of sobriety; but I would think it would have to be noted that the person saying the things was intoxicated...(?) I'm just applying some common sence, have no specific legal knowledge pertaining to this particular situation--and sometimes laws make no common sence to me, but for what it's worth... It's what I think.
2006-12-15 07:07:34 · answer #3 · answered by Kristibell 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Very lawful, if they suspect it they have to ask, normally is it more, like have you been drinking? yes.. how much? eh, a botle of Makers mark.... pretty much gives it away, but just asking, hey are you drunk, no issues with that. So, when it comes to court, trying to counter it by saying that I only admitted to being drunk is becuase I was in an altered state of mind because I was drunk is really not going to fly.
You also have to realize, that they need evidence over a statement, a breath or blood test to document the blood alcohol levels.
2006-12-15 07:04:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes it is. for example, most drunks think they are ok to drive, therefore they think they are of sane and sober mind, able to think rationally, and make decisions accordingly. Therefore if they think that are ok, why should the cops think different. They still follow the laws, miranda rights etc. but yes it is fair game. Being drunk is not an wexcuse, or a condition, and does not deserve special treatment
2006-12-15 08:56:26 · answer #5 · answered by speedysundevil 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sometimes. It would be decided by a Judge if the statement would be admissible dependent on if the subject understood their rights and voluntarily waived their rights.
Common sense would dictate that a very high degree of intoxication would be required to render such a statement inadmissible, but in my jurisdiction, we usually don't request a statement until the person is sober. We can wait while the person sobers up and then pursue the matter.
2006-12-15 07:51:13 · answer #6 · answered by Jim 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes that is legal and often what a drunk says does get used in court.
2006-12-15 07:45:36 · answer #7 · answered by Loli M 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes and no...In court, your lawyer should bring up the fact that you were in an altered state of mind...And all experts will say that although people may claim alcohol makes the truth come out, it actually just makes you think in simpler terms and makes your tongue a little loose. But yes, they can use it in court, just hope you have a lawyer that will argue for you!
2006-12-15 07:00:34 · answer #8 · answered by Jase 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on if that person was actually under arrest and in custody at the time. It all depends on if it was considered an custodial interrogation, if yes, then they are required to read them or give them their miranda warnings before questioning. Not enough facts here to give you a definite response.
2006-12-15 07:30:49 · answer #9 · answered by On Time 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure, why not?? It would only be questionable if the police got him drunk in the first place.
2006-12-15 06:55:34 · answer #10 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bob B for sure has no longer studied what's and isn't any longer lawful at the same time as it contains police artwork... and what we've the right to do and in no thanks to do. sure we can ask on your identity if we favor to.... for all i comprehend... you contained in the passenger seat are on the most needed list!
2016-11-26 21:24:43 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋