2007-02-24 17:10:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
1.you have the right to remain silent
2.ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.
3.you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have himpresent before and during any questioning if you wish.
4.if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you free of charge before and during any questioning if you wish.
5. YOU CAN DECIDE AT ANY TIME TO EXERCISE THESE RIGHTS AND NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY STATEMENTS.
2007-02-24 17:29:31 · answer #1 · answered by vpsoomalley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, usually.
Confessions are allowable as long as they are voluntary.
A confession is voluntary if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that it was the product of rational intellect and not the result of physical abuse, psychological intimidation, or deceptive interrogation tactics calculated to overcome the defendant's free will. The presence of drugs in the defenants system does not normally invalidate such a confession, if it was the defendant who voluntarily took the drugs.
So if a defendant was under the influence of some drug they took when they were arrested, and they confess, the confession comes in. Confess to dealing drugs, while high on them, means the defendant is in big trouble!
The only problems arise when the intoxication was NOT voluntary, So if the police gave drugs to the defendant, the confession will probally be out. (U.S. v. Rodgers
186 F.Supp.2d 971).
It gets more interesting when the defendant claims the intoxication was not voluntary, but the dugs were not provided by the police. For example, if the drugs were provided by a doctor for medical treatment, or the person claims they were "dosed". Those cases get complicated, and the result is unclear.
Finally, confessions are sometimes suppressed on Miranda grounds. But that's rare.
If this is a real case, be sure to see a lawyer.
2007-02-24 18:28:39 · answer #2 · answered by tallthatsme 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I was going to college in Arkansas back in the 1990s, I was told that laws in that state made any crime committed while "under the influence" a first-degree crime, that is an act of choice. I don't know if other states use this same standard or not, but I agree with it. The idea is that those people chose to drink or smoke or shoot up or whatever their drug of choice, therefore they chose to act out as a result. It's a great way to get tough on crime and crack down on substance abuse of all kinds.
2007-02-24 18:03:03 · answer #3 · answered by timotito_11964 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Depends on whether you knowing and voluntaringly gave the statement after you waived your mirand rights. It would all depend on what drug you were on and how far out of it you were. There is no definite yes or no answer. More times than not, it will be allowed.
2007-02-24 18:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by On Time 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They sure can, after all, you're the one under the influence, and nobody made you do it.
2007-02-24 17:19:40 · answer #5 · answered by johN p. aka-Hey you. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. The standard is whether the confession was "knowing" and "voluntary."
2007-02-24 17:15:07 · answer #6 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law"???
2007-02-24 17:29:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2007-02-24 17:14:09 · answer #8 · answered by Sronce 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
better believe it; remember, "you have the right to remain silent..."
2007-02-24 17:58:46 · answer #9 · answered by dƒ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋