petty theft & miranda rights?

Question

two of my friends (one is 18 and the other is 17) got arrested for pett theft
they told me that the cops didn't read their rights(miranda rights)
they gave the cops the informations that they asked for
my friend who was 18 went to jail for like a half a day(my friend got bailed)

i told them that if their miranda rights were not read their case gets dropped(or something like that)
is it 100% true?? i want to make sure....??

Answer 1

no, your case does not automatically get dropped. If you were under arrest and the police begin to question you without reading you your Miranda rights then generally (there are exceptions) whatever you tell them cannot be used against you. However, the police can "cure" this by reading you your rights then asking you the same question again. Even if what they said gets suppressed any other evidence can still be used against them, that's why there is no automatic dismissal. It may be the case that without their statements the state has no case and they would have to drop it as a practical matter.

Do your friends have attorneys? When you say they went to jail do you mean they were arrested and detained or actually sentenced? If they haven't gone to trial yet they need to get attorneys and let them deal with this.

Answer 2

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. 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). However, since its creation by the Warren Court, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Miranda decision imposes "prophylactic" or preventative safeguards rather than protections mandated by the Fifth Amendment privilege.

Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. In 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture" (Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given then. Furthermore, if public safety warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda warning, and the evidence thus obtained can sometimes still be used against the defendant.

Because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Because it is a prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol without a warrant.

Answer 3

If they confessed without being given their rights then the cops can't use their confession or and evidence obtained from that confession as evidence to confvict them.

But if the police caught them red handed with evidence or had witnesses then they do not need their confessions to convict them.

And also the police can lie and say they did read them their rights and the judge is more likely to believe the officers unless there were other witnesses present.

Also if they were store security or security guards they are not required by law to perform miranda before questioning.

Answer 4

My understanding of Miranda is that if the police take someone into custody that they have to read them their rights. Any competent lawyer should be able to argue for dismissal if that wasn't done.

Answer 5

Possibley but it is better to speak with a lawyer about it

Answer 6

nope.