2007-09-06 18:50:30 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
here is the problem... my friend was arested.. he went back to get some of his stuff from his ex wifes home ..... his ex mother in law call police & had him arested for tresspassing... the cop put him in cuffs & took him away but did not read him his rights or get a statment on why he was theere.. ..... is the cop @ fault???
2007-09-06 19:09:20 · update #1
No.
The only time you HAVE to read someone their Miranda Rights is when they are in custody AND are being interrogated/questioned.
2007-09-07 10:40:29 · answer #1 · answered by La Bella Vita 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Miranda has what's called a two-pronged test... If someone is a) in a custodial setting (meaning they either aren't or don't believe they are free to leave at will), and b) being asked incriminating questions, then they must be Mirandized.
Regardless of what you see on television - which is just the way hollywood tells audiences that someone is being arrested.. (and is much less anti-climactic than most actual arrests) Miranda is just NOT required if officers are making an arrest, because if you're making an arrest, you don't NEED a statement from the suspect... you've already got probable cause to arrest!
If I put someone in handcuffs and want to ask them about their violation of probation, I WOULD have to Mirandize them, because they met the two-pronged test... but I wouldn't have to do so until I was asking "incriminating" questions...
Most of the time, I've already done my investigation, have my proof, and don't really give a rip what they have to say about it.
2007-09-07 03:20:14 · answer #2 · answered by Amy S 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see a lot of folks did not pay attention in high school civics class nor did ed z pay attention in business law class. [That's understandable though since business law is pretty much civil law whereas the Miranda decision came down in a criminal case.] Too much TV drama.
As one person stated, there are two requirement before the Miranda rights are required. Those 2 requirements are, 1) the person must be in custody, & 2) the police must be interrogating the person.
Your friend was in custody but until the police started interrogating him, there was no requirement for the Miranda admonishment. From your question, it definitely appears he was not interrogated.
2007-09-07 02:24:27 · answer #3 · answered by XPig 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ok, for Miranda to be in effect, two things are both required:
In custody, and
questioned about criminal activities.
If the Officer asked no questions about a crime, then Miranda does NOT apply, even though the person was in custody.
As an aside, Miranda did NOT get off. His original conviction was overturned, and he got a new trial. He was convicted again, without his confession, as there was other evidence that proved his guilt. Miranda went to prison.
2007-09-08 19:17:39 · answer #4 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only time a police officer has to read anybody their rights is when they are questioning them while they are in custody. For example, if I call you on the phone and you admit to me that you committed a crime, even though I questioned you as a suspect, you could have hung up the phone at anytime, therefore it is admissible.
If I arrest you, and you make an admission, without me questioning you, it is admissible (sometimes called "spontaneous utterances)
If I stop to talk to you on the street and make sure you are aware that you could walk away, anything you say would be admissible.
In the case that you mentioned, the officers caught him red handed, they really didn't need to question him.
Once under arrest, they can ask some questions, without reading you your rights. These question pertain to general things, such as identification (ask you name, date of birth etc.) and Your health, (suicidal?, are you sick?, etc))
2007-09-07 13:06:05 · answer #5 · answered by joseph b 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Common misconception. The Police are only required to read someone their Miranda if they are in custody (i.e. under arrest) and being asked questions about a crime. So there is no requirement to read Miranda to someone if they are simply under arrest. In fact it is wise not to Mirandize someone unless you decide to question them.
Also, no statement needs to be taken especially in something as simple as a trespassing charge.
2007-09-07 08:56:10 · answer #6 · answered by El Scott 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Keep in mind if exigent circumstances exist then they can question you without reading your rights, then proceed to arrest you. For example when an officer pulls you over and smells alcohol he asks you if have been drinking. If you have and are over the limit they can arrest you and the previous question is admissible because you posed an immediate threat. Its somewhat confusing which is why they typically read your rights regardless of the situation.
2007-09-07 06:25:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, not to arrest them.
To question them about a criminal act requires the reading of Miranda Warnings/Rights.
2007-09-07 01:56:20 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only time Miranda is required is when there is an arrest AND an interrogation. You absoulutely have to have both. If you arrest somebody and do not interrogate them, Miranda is not required and visa versa.
2007-09-07 02:02:28 · answer #9 · answered by El Guapo 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. That's pure Hollywood. They do NOT have to read you your rights when they arrest you.
They only have to read them to you before, or if, they question you. And only then if they want whatever you say to be admissible in court.
2007-09-07 01:58:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋