I Was Not Read My Miranda Rights, Is That A Defense To DUI? In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatorystatements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. Most people are familiar with these now famous “Miranda Warnings” and have formed the mistaken opinion that law enforcement must alway invoke Miranda when a defendant is placed under arrest. This is not true. Law enforcement is not required to give Miranda Warnings unless they seek to interrogate (ask questions) following an arrest. Typically a DUI arrest begins with a traffic investigation. During the traffic investigation you are not under arrest. A seasoned officer will sit back and wait for you to offer statements which he or she will then use against you. This scenario was addressed by the Supreme Court which held that a ”spontaneous” statement made by a defendant while in custody, even though the defendant has not been given the Miranda warnings or has invoked the right to counsel and a lawyer is not yet present, is admissible in evidence, as long as the statement was not given in response to police questioning or other conduct by the police likely to produce an incriminating response (see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)). Therefore, if you make incriminating statements prior to being placed under arrest, and/or offer spontaneous statements while in custody, the statements are more than likely going to be allowed before the jury. Comedian Ron White famously said, “I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability.” The best response is to politely ask to speak with a lawyer prior to answering any questions. This approach was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 US 610 (1976) which held that a defendant’s silence in response to a Miranda warning cannot be construed to imply an admission.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:03:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015