miranda rights?

Question

are cops supposed to read miranda rights and if so when during arrest or after what if they werent read?

Answer 1

They are read after the arrest, and before any questioning. Anything that is said voluntarily may be admitted into evidence.

Answer 2

The Miranda v. Arizona decision held that statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the states cases in chief unless the police provided certain warnings to protect the defendants fifth amendment rights. You've heard some of the exact words form the decision many times: You have the right to remain silent, etc, etc.


Being under arrest counts as custodial, so the police should give warnings prior to any interrogation. Usually this is at the time of the arrest, but it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be before they question the defendant.

If they don't they all statements made by the defendant can not be used against them by the state to prove it's case.

BUT....

There are several exceptions, for example, statements made in violation of Miranda that are had in response to public safety questions, are allowed in.

Also, the statements can be used to impeach the defendant if they testify.

Other evidence found as a result of those statements, is allowed in....Miranda does not have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

Other aspects get pretty complicated, and are typically taught in a criminal procedure class in law school.

Answer 3

There is no law and never has been a law that Miranda must be read. The Supreme Court decided in one case that the arresting officer should have explained Mr. Miranda's rights to him before being interrogated. After that decision most agencies decided to read these rights.

Recently the courts ruled that someone who knows they are arrested but choose to talk or someone with a history of being arrested don't need to be mirandized. But the courts would probably rule against a police officer who decided to interrogate a suspect with out reading him his rights.

If you freely start yacking you are on your own.

Answer 4

What CGIV76 posted is correct HOWEVER, unlike on TV and contrary to many posted "facts" by people here, the police do not have to read you your rights when you have been arrested. I have made hundreds and probably thousands of arrests where I never once read their rights to a suspect. It is only required if I plan on questioning that suspect about the crime for which they were arrested.

Everyone saying, "They HAVE to read you your rights or the arrest is no good" is WAY off base. Miranda warnings only apply to questions about the crime you are being arrested for. The arrest will not be thrown out or the case dismissed if I don't read you your rights. It just doesn't happen. If I ask you questions relating to the reason I arrested you and I don't read your Miranda warning, the answers won't be admissible in court, but the arrest will NOT be thrown out. If I arrest you for a warrant there is nothing I am going to ask you about relating to a warrant arrest so I am not going to read anyone their rights for that scenario. So many people believe everything they see, hear and read......especially if it comes from TV or the movies.....but it just isn't the case. Educate yourselves people!!!

This is an exerpt from Wikipedia........the link is below.

Confusion regarding use:

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 the 2000 Dickerson decision, 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 (2000). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle 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 then be given. Furthermore, if public safety (see New York v. Quarles) 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 5

Miranda must be read when someone is in custody and being questioned about a crime. If those two elements are not present then there is no need for Miranda. So if you are not in custody (i.e. under arrest) then the Police can question you without Miranda. Also if you are in custody but not being questioned then there is also no need for Miranda.

If someone is in custody and questioned without Miranda then whatever was said can not be used against that person. The charges can still stand and the person can even be convicted for the crime but without the confession.

Answer 6

Your rights are read to you only when they ask you specific questions concerning the crime. Questions relating to your personal information is not covered by the Miranda Warning. So if they arrested you and tossed you into jail without advising you of your rights, the cop probably had enough evidence so that he didn't need to talk to you about the crime.

Enjoy prison

Answer 7

While I was a police officer, I only read the Miranda to cover myself. If I arrested you and never asked you a question, then everything you said or did was voluntary.

If you were under arrest, I would read you your rights before questioning. If I had no intention of questioning you, then I might not read you your rights; but usually did just to cover myself.

If I was only asking you a question before an arrest, Miranda wasn't required.

Answer 8

The leading case that set forth requirement for miranda warnings is Miranda V Arizona it was designed to stop law enforcement offiers from torturng, beating or otherwise coercing a confession out of someone, but you are not always entitled to Miranda warnings. Two factors must be present

(1) you must be in custody or under arrest--this does not mean physically in custody of jail, it means that you are not free to go. The rule is that in the given situation would a reasonable person feel that their freedom to leave is restricted. If you are in your own home being questioned it is less likey you are in custody. of you are asked to come to the police station you may or may not be in custody and the police do not have to tell you that you are free to go. Obviously if your person has been seized, you have been forcefully moved from one place to another or you are handcuffed then you are in custody

(2) interrogation

custody + interrogation = custodial interrogation= miranda warnings must be given

the police are free however to ask you simple questions like your name and address etc even to book you into jail) these questions are not considered interrogation. questions designed to illicet incriminating responses are "interrogation

if you are riding in a police ar and the two ops in the front seat talk or have a onversation among themselves and you voluntarliy jump in ususally not custodial interrogation unless it was designed to get you to incriminate yourself suh as they are riding by a cemetary and one says to the other "that poor hild i sure hope we find her body before the animals do and i hope she an get a good christian burial, would be designed to get you to talk and require miranda

you an waive miranda an talk or you can assert your miranda rights but if you do and then YOU initiate talk with the police they are deemed waived


if not read your attorney will file the proper motion to have anything you said suppressed as well as any evidence that they locatred as a result of your illigally obtained confession as "fruit of the poisenous tree" but as with everything there are exceptions to this rule as well such as if the evidence is such that it would have inevitably been discovered anyway.

if you were not read your rights and you did not say anything or make a onfession you really have no remedy b/c it is to supress your confession.

statement must be in accordance to miranda and also must be free and voluntary to be admitted into a ourt of law

Answer 9

One of the most debated questions on this board, each week.

Suspects in police custody must be told they can remain silent and have the right to consult a lawyer before questioning. If the warning is not given, any confession that results cannot be used against the defendant at trial. It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail cell, in the back of a police car, at the scene of a crime, on a busy street or the middle of a corn field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.

If a person is not in police custody, not under arrest, the Miranda warnings are NOT required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. Therefore, when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime—known as a "consensual encounter"—and the person blurts out a confession before the police have determined they have "probable cause to arrest" that person and place them in custody, the confession is admissible at trial. Similarly, if the police have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a person has committed a crime, (more than a gut suspicion: specific facts that tie a suspect to a crime)—the police can "detain," but not formally arrest a suspect and question the suspect without giving the suspect his Miranda warnings.

Just as they circle a beating victim on the ground to block out public viewing and cameras, they will block people's civil rights each chance they get

Answer 10

the miranda rights are read after the arrest. and no they don't have to be read. if they aren't, then they just can't use any answers to questions they asked you against you. ie. after you are arrested they ask you where your pot is. you tell them. can't be used. however, if they arrest you and you yell at them "hey, bet you didn't see the dead body in my basement". they can then use that against you.