Ok. Recently I was arrested at my place of employment for a criminal charge. Well when the police officer came there and asked me questions I told him "I'm not answering anything. I want my lawyer." When I got down to the precinct I am again questioned by a detective without my lawyer. i feel they pressured me to talk even after i told the officer I want my lawyer. Were my rights violated? If so, that would make the arrest unlawful. The things I told them led to someone elses arrest. Could the other persons arrest and my testimony be thrown out due to the law "fruit of the poisonous tree"?
2007-11-18 23:16:27 · 8 answers · asked by gilmeraaron 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Were you arrested with probable cause or was there a warrant?
If you were arrested without a warrant or probable cause, there is an issue of whether later Miranda warnings lose the taint from the illegal arrest.
If you were legally arrested and you told the officer that you did not want to talk, you have a Constitutional right under the fifth amendment not to incriminate yourself. If they had you under arrest, they should have "Mirandized" you. If they failed to give you your rights, that alone is problematic. Additionally, if you told them you wanted your attorney and didn't want to talk, they cannot use that information against you.
Now, your question about poisonous fruit doctrine. Under Oregon v. Estad, Police officers went to D's home with an arrest warrant for D but did not give D the Miranda warnings. After the D made an incriminating response to an officer's assertion that the D was guilty of the crime, this response was not admitted into evidence, but the D's later statements were admitted because they were made at the station after a break of one hour and a fresh set of Miranda warnings. The D argued that the later statements were the inadmissible "fruit" of the initial violation of Miranda during arrest/
The question in that case was, does the Fourth Amendment fruits doctrine of Wong Sun apply to Miranda violations?
Justice O'Connor held that the Fourth Amendment fruits doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations; instead, an initial Miranda violation will result in exclusion of an subsequent post-warning statements that may be the illegal "fruit" of the Miranda violation, but only if the initial violation was produced by coercion, such as physical violence or other "deliberate means calculated to break the suspect's will." That is, the initial Miranda violation must also violate Due Process. Ordinarily a non-coercive Miranda error such as an initial failure to give warnings before interrogation may be remedied by providing warnings to remove the taint of the error from the later waiver and confessions.
It sounds like you are saying that even at the station they failed to Mirandize you and they didn't stop the interrogation after you put them on notice that you wanted your lawyer--this is plainly a violation of your rights. Just remember, you better have your facts straight, because most police cars and interrogation rooms have recorders.
2007-11-19 05:18:27 · answer #1 · answered by wordtowise 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By not granting your request for a lawyer, they will not be able to use your statements against you. This would be a violation of the case law set forth in Miranda v. Arizona.
However, this is a rule of evidence only. It does not make the arrest unlawful, it just prohibits the comments you made from being admissable.
Your comments could still be used to incriminate someone else, just not yourself, so there is no "fruit of the poisonous tree".
2007-11-18 23:21:59 · answer #2 · answered by trooper3316 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why are you asking us here? didn't you get a lawyer yet?
Maybe if you didn't actually intended to get a lawyer, then it can be argued you never seriously asked for one.
In any case, I am sure the specifics will depend on who said exactly what and when, and that will be for a judge to decide. Judges are most likely to make a favorable decision for a side that has an attorney well versed in the law and the procedures.
You can be sure the other side will have such an attorney in this case. If it is an important matter to you , don't you think you should have one to rely on too instead of asking here in the peanut gallery? :)
2007-11-19 04:03:04 · answer #3 · answered by Barry C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry.
Once you ask for an attorney all questioning about the crime should cease. Your statements, after invoking your right to an attorney, can "not be used against you in a court of law"... but they can be used to implicate others. They can take the info they got from you and hammer the real person. They will crack and confess and then the police will never need to bring up your statements in court at all. No problem.
That's why they grilled you after you requested an attorney. They never planned on charging you, but they knew you had info to drop about the real criminal. they turned up the heat and you cracked and told them the TRUTH.
Why didn't you just tell the truth in the first place? Its all we want. Now the real criminal should pay. Why cover for someone? They committed a crime against someone right? wouldn't you want justice if you were a victim?
2007-11-19 00:23:32 · answer #4 · answered by California Street Cop 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, the general rule is "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". It sounds like you bowed to the pressure, its their intent to get you sputtering out before you get a lawyer involved. The idea is you don't have to talk, no matter how much they pressure you, but if you do talk it is evidence and must be truthful. Don't ask the knuckle heads here, you sound like you're in it deep, get a lawyer asap!
2007-11-18 23:23:06 · answer #5 · answered by The Lansing Steamer 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you could not be evicted till you're served with an eviction observe. That being stated, you stated that it says on your hire that they are able to flow you to a distinctive unit. Granted they don't seem to be handling it properly or professionally, yet you will probable lose in courtroom. or according to probability not because of the fact they're violating your privateness and user-friendly rights...your maximum suitable wager would be to speak to a lawyer on your section who makes a speciality of tenant rights...and do it without postpone...there is merely not a can charge for the preliminary look for suggestion from and you will locate out what your selection/rights are. reliable success
2016-10-01 23:49:31 · answer #6 · answered by riva 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interrogation without the presence of a lawyer is invalid under the Constitution.
2007-11-18 23:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They did nothing wrong. There is no "fruit of the poisonous tree" law, this is 2007 BC.
2007-11-18 23:20:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋