Are Miranda Rights a optional thing when you are arrested?

Question

Like you are formally arrested and ask for Miranda warning repeatedly on video and police say they dont have to warn you , iIts a privelige not a righ tthey say

If not given can your statements be presented before a court of law legally under the constitution?

If not given can your statements be presented against yiou before a court of law legally under the constitution?

Answer 1

no...it has to be read...anytime wen the suspect is being arrested

Answer 2

You are all WRONG.

The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes.
Any officer CANNOT question a suspect without reading that supects Miranda rights first, failure to do so would constitute his statement inadmissable in court since it was not properly obtained.

Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings. Compulsory confessions will not constitute admissible evidence unless suspects have been made aware of and waived their "Miranda rights".

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).

News flash: The Police DOES NOT have to read you, your Miranda rights BEFORE you get arrested, is only if you are being questioned in relation to a crime in which you are a suspect of.

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape, which he confessed to with no warning of his constitutional right to silence, or his right to have an attorney present.

At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he did not understand his right not to incriminate himself or his right to counsel.

On this basis, they overturned his conviction. Miranda was later convicted in a new trial, with witnesses testifying against him and other evidence presented. He served 11 years.

Miranda was later killed in a knife fight and his murderer was read his Miranda rights, which he invoked, declining to give a statement. [1]

In 2000, the issue of Miranda rights came up before the Supreme Court once again (Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)). The justices re-affirmed the role of the earlier precedent

Answer 3

Short and simple answer. Miranda is only required when you are in custody and you are being questioned in a way that might implicate you. For example: asking your name is not a question that would require miranda. Asking your where the drugs are would.

The definition of custody can be kind of fuzzy too. Usually it means that a reasonable person in the same circumstance would not feel that they were free to leave.

The feds don't need to mirandize you at all.

Answer 4

The police only have to read you your Miranda rights if they intend to ask you potentially incriminating questions pertinent to the arrest. If they don't ask you any questions and give you the opportunity to admit any type of guilt, then they don't have to advise you squat. If the officers ask you a bunch of questions about what you did without advising you of your Miranda rights, then your subsequent statements are not admissible in court. They are certain types of questions outside of Miranda that are admissible. Also, any spontaneous statements you make are also admissible. If you hung yourself out to dry by babbling on their tape, then that's probably on you.

Answer 5

It's optional. The police won't read the suspect their rights if they are resisting arrest, struggling and fighting with the cops. Kind of hard to read people their rights in the midst of fighting them and applying the handcuffs I would think.

Answer 6

It used to be mandatory. The US Supreme Court decided in the past several years there was no need to be mandatory at every arrest.

Answer 7

They DO NOT have to tell you, doesn't matter if you're resisting or being an angel. If they don't feel like it they don't have to say a thing.

Answer 8

Since 9/11 it has been set aside with all your other constitutional rights!

Answer 9

That's a good question. They don't always tell you. Sometimes they just mumble-you know your rights- Babylon

Answer 10

THE SC DECIDED THEY DON'T HAVE TO TELL IT TO YOU WORD FOR WORD, IN CASES THAT YOU ASK FOR IT TO CREATE SOME TECHNICALITY THEN THAT MEANS YOU ALREADY KNOW IT AND DON'T NEED TO BE REMINDED OF IT!