The detective said no, So do you think that is a score for the person being charge for the crime?
2007-03-19 10:17:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As long as the officer didn't have the person in custody (unable to leave) and wasn't questioning the person, then there is nothing wrong with the officer not reading the miranda rights to the individual.
2007-03-19 10:24:16 · answer #1 · answered by Mama Pastafarian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is: it depends.
The police are required to warn someone of their rights prior to questioning them, IF they are going to use the results of those questions against them. For instance: they don't need to give the miranda warning prior to asking for name, address, etc.. basic biographical information. However, the police ARE required to give the miranda warnings prior to any *custodial* interrogation, especially if they want to later use those statements against the person. I will give a couple of examples:
Situation 1: Detectives ask a person to come into the police station for questioning about a potential crime. He goes voluntarily. During the questioning, they begin to believe he has committed the crime. The do not warn him of his rights, and continue to question him and eventually, he confesses. However, the police do admit, under questioning, that he was not free to leave the police station after he arrived. This would be a violation, and anything he told the officers would be inadmissable. Generally, any information they derived from what he told them would be also tainted, unless they can show an exception for "inevitable discovery".
Situation 2: Officers stop a motorist for speeding. The officer noticies that the motorist has an odor of alcohol, and that his eyes are bloodshot. He has the person do field sobriety tests and a field breath test, and he fails. The motorist is arrested for a DUI. At the police station, the officer asks him his name, addrerss, and other information, but does not ask him if he's had anything to drink, etc. The officer has not violated any rules, because the questions are not related to the crime, but merely to the administrative paperwork of an arrest.
Situation 3: (and this is one that's somewhat iffy) Same scenario as #2, but after the officer has finished the administrative paperwork, he begins to ask the motorist where he was going, how much he had to drink, if he has prior arrests, etc. Questions about how much he had to drink may not be allowed, but questions about where he was going, prior arrests might, and the courts hate to deal with these situations. This is why its common for police to err on the side of giving the miranda warnings often and early. Its better to mirandize someone than to fail to and have the results of the questioning thrown out.
2007-03-19 17:33:54 · answer #2 · answered by Phil R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the jury decides the trial, you've got to look at how they are taking the evidence. If the defense is trying to spin it that the police failed to follow their guidelines leading to an incorrect assessment, then any information towards that end (that the police did not follow procedure) could be harmful to their case.
From my lay perspective, Miranda rights are only to protect the charged from the time they are taken into custody to the time they meet with their attorney (assuming they choose to). The idea being that without a solid knowledge of the law, us lay people might incriminate ourselves unintentionally.
If the police did not read them their rights, but the accused was silent until he met with his lawyer, then I would think the charge of not reading Miranda is flimsy. I couldn't find anywhere that a case was void without it.
Once again, not a lawyer, so don't take it as fact. Just my interpretation of what I know of Miranda rights...
2007-03-19 17:29:36 · answer #3 · answered by nathanziarek 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A police officer can make an arrest without giving Miranda to the suspect as long as he/she does not question the suspect. If any police officer or district attorney questioned the suspect without the issuing of Miranda, then any statements made by the defendant would be considered inadmissible in court.
2007-03-19 17:29:25 · answer #4 · answered by notaxpert 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The only time a police officer is required to advise a suspect of his rights in accordance with the Miranda-Escobedo ruling is before he is questioned as a suspect in a criminal case. Witnesses do not need to be advised until they become suspects, and if a suspect is never questioned, he does not need to be advised of his rights.
I've locked up many a drunk driver and never advised them of their rights because I never questioned them. Never had to, and I got convictions on all of them.
2007-03-19 17:24:37 · answer #5 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all. Giving someone a miranda is not necessary to ask them questions.
2007-03-19 17:21:58 · answer #6 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
unfortunatley you dont have to be read your rights on the spot of arrest or anything now this sux but no it is not a "score"
2007-03-19 18:28:29 · answer #7 · answered by liquidzac 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quando la gusta la gusta la gusta la gusta....
Oh, THAT miranda....
2007-03-19 17:21:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋