"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?"
Since a person has the right to remain silent and not say ANYthing, what happens if the suspect refuses to answer "yes" or "no" to the question, "Do you understand...."? What if a suspect really does understand his or her rights, but refuses to speak, or say anything whatsoever, when arrested? Is saying yes or no to the "do you understand....?" question some sort of acknowledgement of legal jurisdiction? Like, for instance, law enforcement tells suspects they have the right to remain silent, but then they ask a question, which means the suspect has to speak, and has to answer a question. Isn't answering the question a waiver of one's right to remain silent?
2007-12-02 15:23:32 · 12 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Ahh, great question.
Your actual question was. . . some sort of legal jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is with regard to a court's ability to hear a case -- but, I understand what you're asking.
They have to ask that question -- because many a criminal has "gotten off" by indicating that he or she did not understand the Miranda Rights.
The police ask this question, because if somebody says, "Yes" and then talks -- they have waived their right to remain silent.
If they don't respond, but talk -- it's something that the attorney could argue (maybe successfully, depending upon the circumstances) in court, and get the criminal "off" with.
My suggestion is . .. to always say nothing. . . don't respond to the question, or any other questions they ask of you -- the less they know, the better off you are.
2007-12-02 16:19:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Miranda has two levels of rights built in. The first is the right to remain silent, and the second is the right to counsel.
Both rights need to be affirmatively waived, or invoked in order to set into motion. Saying you understand your rights, is neither an invocation, nor a waiver. However, reading some one their rights is not considered interrogation, so it would be an acceptable question to ask. There are questions that are not considered interrogation, and therefore will not be included in the Miranda warnings, these will include what are known as "common law questions," questions relating to a public issue of safety, and routine booking questions, i.e. your name etc. So first off, if you are not being questioned then Miranda does not kick in. In the case of being asked if you understand your rights, that would not invoke Miranda. Assuming even if it did, it would not function as a waiver of Miranda. If you answer a question, you can still assert your rights at any time. Once your rights are invoked the police have to "scrupulously honor" that right.
2007-12-02 17:54:40 · answer #2 · answered by Damien T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sorry, miranda isn't like in the movies anymore.
"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... ,"
there are several other situations wherein Miranda does not apply.
2007-12-02 16:58:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Couple of extraneous things going on here.
If the person (not sure if "suspect" is right) refuses to say he understands his rights, he's also not going to say anything to incriminate himself. By not saying ANYthing, he's exercising his Miranda rights. It won't hurt him to say nothing.
Miranda also applies to answering questions about the circumstances. So if the cop arrests the subject for murder and, during the course of the arrest, he asks the subject, "Do you want to sit down?" the subject can answer since that would neither exonerate him or convict him. (See below for the phrase, " ... regarding the possible commission of a crime ...")
2007-12-02 15:52:11 · answer #4 · answered by going_for_baroque 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the suspect can say whatever he or she wants. At any time, even if he or she says "I will tell you anything" they can change their mind and refuse to answer a question. The point of the warning is so the suspect knows that what they say CAN be used to convict them, so they won't through ignorance say something incriminating. So much for 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.'
2007-12-02 15:32:56 · answer #5 · answered by theseeker4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
curiously so. Immigration brokers at the instant are not required to acquire warrants to detain suspects. The brokers even have vast authority to question human beings approximately their immigration prestige and to seek them and their residences. There are not any Miranda rights that brokers ought to study while making arrests. while an unlawful immigrant is arrested for against the regulation, the police have the authority to ask, at that factor purely, for his or her green card. additionally, this guy or woman could nicely be immediately checked, interior the police motor vehicle, with INS, to confirm this persons prestige. we are able to appreciate his prestige interior of minutes. miranda or no miranda warning?
2016-12-10 10:52:29 · answer #6 · answered by voll 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you don't have to answer at all.
But if you 'don't' say anything, the police don't have to stop questioning you. If you say "I want a lawyer", then they have to stop.
If you don't answer the Miranda "do you understand?" question, and then answer the cops later questions, which results in you giving them information they can use against you, it's going to be almost impossible for a lawyer to get that information suppressed, because all you had to do was say "I don't understand", and they'd have stopped questioning you until you did.
Richard.
2007-12-02 15:40:56 · answer #7 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all one has to do is say "I wish to have my attorney present and invoke my right to remain silent"
most people incriminate themselves by saying too much and in panic, dont take advantage of the law !
Look at Senator Craig in that bathroom sting!
Had he kept his mouth shut
A first year law student could have gotten him off !
He had the right to tell the cop Im not saying anything
but most people talk their mouth off and police know that !
2007-12-02 15:34:51 · answer #8 · answered by fred6636 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow haha, good question. if i'm ever arrested i'll try it out and let ya know.
Maybe they have to keep repeating the Miranda Rights over and over and over again until they do respond.
I bet in reality they wouldn't give a **** if they didn't respond though.
2007-12-02 15:28:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All you have to do when a cop arrests you is not resist arrest. Don't say a word. It really is in your best interest.
2007-12-02 16:20:56 · answer #10 · answered by primalclaws1974 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋