In my hometown, whenever someone is arrested, the officers don't read them their miranda rights. I thought it was the law that this was supposed to happen upon arrest. How can they get away with it?
2007-11-07 08:52:06 · 37 answers · asked by Ladylin7777 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
They are read after arrest, and prior to questioning. If no questions are asked, then you don't have to advise the individual of their rights. They are told that anything they say voluntarily can be used as evidence.
2007-11-07 09:33:28 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I see a lot of misinformed poor souls out there that watch too much TV. So here is the rule and a few examples.
A person MUST be read their Miranda Warnings if, and only if, they are in custody AND being interrogated.
1. A person is arrested and the officer wants to question them, the officer reads them Miranda, the person agrees to answer questions. The statements are allowed in court.
2. A person is arrested and the officer DOES NOT question him. Miranda is not required, the charge is not affected because no questions were asked after arrest so there is nothing to suppress.
*If the arrestee makes any statements that are not promted by the officer, they are admissable in court.
3. A person is arrested and not read Miranda. The officer questions the person and those statements are used by the officer to prove the crime. The statement will be supressed and charges COULD be dropped if there is no other evidence besides the statement to support the crime.
4. A person is arrested and not read Miranda. The officer questions the person and this leads to other evidence. The statements and evidence will not be allowed in court.
The bottom line is, if a person is arrested, Miranda is only required if the officer is going to interogate the suspect. A lack of MIranda being read will not lead to the charges being dropped if their is other evidence to prove the crime.
Miranda only exsists to protect a suspect from being forced or coerced into making a statement against himself.....Nothing More.
2007-11-07 16:48:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cannot pretend to know the law just because you watch a lot of TV shows.
As many others have said here, Miranda Rights are read only prior to questioning.
Miranda Rights do not protect the suspect, they protect the public. You already have the right to remain silent during questioning, you already have the right to have an attorney present. Miranda just states the rights you already have so that you can't say later, "I didn't know I was allowed to not answer", and rescind all the statements you made earlier.
If the arresting officer is not intending to question you right now, he does not have to Mirandize you right now.
2007-11-09 17:30:36 · answer #3 · answered by wuxxler 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the case of obtaining and holding a suspect for questioning....ABSOLUTELY.
In the US, an officer MUST "miranda" an arrested person in order so that the arrested doesn't get intimidated during questioning nor cannot incriminate him/herself in court by realizing that he/she CAN (constitutionally) remain silent and has right to counsel, and if a suspect can't afford counsel, one would be appointed by the courts.
There are different variations on how the Miranda Rights are read, by state and local authorities but EVERY arrested person must be read their Miranda rights. And, as the case of Ernesto Miranda (the person that these rights are named for), if a suspect isn't informed of his/her rights regarding their arrest, then their conviction can be overturned, based on the fact that the officers did not read the suspect the Miranda.
2007-11-07 09:05:46 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
When an officer arrests some one suspected of a crime they do not have to read them their Miranda rights rigt away. Miranda applies to "custodial questioning." In other words when an officer wants to ask you specific questions concerning the crime he/she believes you committed they must read you your Miranda rights in order for your statements to be admissible in court. Miranda is not a required step in the process of arresting someone although it is a required step an officer must take before questioning can take place. See Miranda vs. Arizona
2007-11-07 09:13:34 · answer #5 · answered by Punjab 127 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Miranda rights only deal with questioning a suspect and being able to get an attorney. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have an attorney present while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed before any questioning if you wish. If you do not read a person his rights the only thing you can lose is being able to use a suspects statement. That is all. A lot of departments have a policy to read a suspect his rights but its not required if you do not want to take a statement from them.
2007-11-07 09:49:43 · answer #6 · answered by Kent N 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Miranda Rights are supposed to be given before questioning. If they don't question the person immediately upon arrest, they can read them their rights later, before they begin actual questioning.
"In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without first reading suspects their Miranda warnings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
2007-11-07 08:56:49 · answer #7 · answered by Yahzmin ♥♥ 4ever 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Ive looked around and as far as I understood they had to, but this is what I managed to come up with from Wikipedia.
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without first reading suspects their Miranda warnings.
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
2007-11-07 08:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. The Miranda rights must be read before those who are arrested are questioned / booked. The Miranda rights do not, however, need to be read at the time of arrest (meaning they cuff em and take em downtown.) They simply must be notified of their rights before they are questioned.
2007-11-07 09:04:47 · answer #9 · answered by Naesen Y 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The police don't have to advise you of your Miranda rights unless you are not free to leave & they suspect you of committing a crime, & want to question you. The police do NOT always have to advise you of your Miranda rights just because you've been arrested.
*billym....That was NOT a dumb question. What country are you from? Curious to know because you have the nerve to put down the USA.
2007-11-07 09:02:55 · answer #10 · answered by Shortstuff13 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Miranda rights are required only if the accused is in custody and going to be interrogated. Those two things are required. If its only one, the Miranda rights do not need to be said.
look up the actual case and learn about it. Its interesting.
Miranda vs Arizona 1966
2007-11-07 15:37:29 · answer #11 · answered by Cutie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋