I thought that if you were arrested for anything that you had to be read your rights. The first time my daughter was arrested in Rockport, In, where her ex-father-in-law is the town jailer, she was arrested for pushing her ex-mother-in-law. They did not read her the miranda rights then. She is behind in her child suport, and although they take 40% of the gross of her paychecks, she was told to come down and see her little girl, not to worry about the child support. Well, you got it, she goes to see my little granddaughter, who has just talked to her mommy and expecting to see her, and they arrest for non-payment of child support. She was not read her rights again. Are you supposed to have your rights read to you in Indiana when you are arrested or is it just a tv thing?
2007-01-06 13:54:43 · 8 answers · asked by hespinoza47670 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You are not required to be read your rights simply by being taken into custody or under arrest. It is required prior to questioning by any officer to gain information that could prove your guilt.
Yes, it is a TV thing, there are a lot of things on TV cop shows that aren't accurate!
2007-01-06 14:06:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
1
2016-06-10 14:55:33 · answer #2 · answered by Charlotte 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Law Enforcement are not required by law to read miranda to anyone unless they are being questioned.
Say you are arrest for DUI and while inventoring your car he finds a bag of weed and/or a stolen gun. The officer arrests you for DUI and possession of marijuana and the stolen gun.
The officer reads you your implied consent to see if you will take a breath or blood test (its up to you) He does not have to "read you your rights"
BUT, before he starts asking you questions on where did you get the weed, where did you get ther stolen gun, etc he has to read you miranda before he questions you.
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.
Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."
Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.
------------------------------...
The following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the Miranda v Arizona case.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
The following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody. A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following.
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
2007-01-06 14:19:42 · answer #3 · answered by Lori H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You NEVER have to be read your Miranda rights UNLESS the police want to interrogate you. If they don't want to talk to you it doesn't matter that you have the right to remain silent. It has nothing to do with the place or the charge. It's a U.S. court decision and all it requires is that (A) you be in police custody and unable to leave, and (B) the police want to interrogate you, ask you questions, about a crime that involves you as a possible suspect.
2007-01-06 14:00:03 · answer #4 · answered by RangerEsq 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually, the supreme court has been backing off of strict enforcement of the Miranda ruling for several years now. We are all well aware of our rights. Also, keep in mind that if she was paying her child support there wouldn't be an issue.
2007-01-06 13:58:35 · answer #5 · answered by Concerned Citizen 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Its a federal law so yes they have to read you the miranda.
2007-01-06 13:57:12 · answer #6 · answered by Haven17 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Rights are read for criminal actions only...not civil. (civil and family court are seperate from criminal..)Child support is family court.
2007-01-06 13:57:47 · answer #7 · answered by Chrys 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Having been arrested several times I can assure you that you MUST be "Mirandized" at the time of arrest.
Everywhere in the USA, thanks to us Liberals.
2007-01-06 14:14:55 · answer #8 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋