The Police doesnt have to read you your Miranda rights before or while they are arresting you, they only have to if they intend to use your testomony at trial. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to avoid making self-incriminating statements. In a ruling for the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that suspects should be advised of their Fifth Amendment rights. Thus, the Miranda Warning was created. If you are arrested by police, you must be informed of your Miranda Rights regarding being interrogated or questioned. However, if the police do not intend to use your answers as evidence at trial, they do not have to read your Miranda Rights. This means that an officer may ask you your name or other questions without informing you of your rights. Similarly, the officer may ask questions without reading the Miranda Warning if he or she believes others are in immediate danger. For example, the officer may ask if you are armed. Your answer to this question may be used at trial. The Miranda Warning protects your right to remain silent during post-arrest questioning as well as your right to an attorney. If you choose to answer questions without a lawyer present, you waive your Fifth Amendment rights; however, should you change your mind about answering questions or have lawyer with you, you are free to do so. Statements that you make unintentionally before being Mirandized are not technically supposed to be used against you at trial, but the law has many exceptions that may make the evidence admissible in court. Therefore, you shouldn’t count on your statement being suppressed if you gave it freely. Defense lawyers would prefer that their potential client takes advantage of his or her right to remain silent. It is easier to defend a client who has not made self-incriminating remarks or confessed to the crime. If the police unlawfully find evidence against you and have not informed you of your Miranda Rights within a timely fashion, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule will apply and make the evidence inadmissible in court. However, if the police can prove they would have found the evidence without your assistance, they are able to use that evidence at court. It is not required that you be advised of your Miranda Rights BEFORE your arrest! After your arrest, it might depend greatly on what it is you were arrested for. The courts have ruled that most traffic violation arrests and many misdemeanor offenses do not require that you be read your Miranda rights. However, you SHOULD be advised of your Miranda rights for all felony arrests. If, for some reason this fails to occur, it doesnt make the arrest unlawful, it only prohibits the use as evidence, anything you say to the police between the time of your arrest and the time that you WERE advised. ---------------------- Anytime that someone is in custody (meaning that an ordinary person would not feel free to leave under the circumstances) and is subject to interrogation (interrogation means words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response) Mirandas must be read, and there must be a valid waiver (knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of these rights) for any statements made to be admissible in court. For example, if you are pulled over and you ask a police officer Am I free to leave? and he says no then you are in custody. Now, if he asks you a question, such as why were you weaving in traffic, then he is interrogating you. Such a question is likely to elicit an incriminating response. At this point, if you are not read your Mirandas, any statement you make is inadmissible at trial. Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 28 – March 1, 1966 Decided June 13, 1966 Full case name Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart Citations 384 U.S. 436 (more) 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974 Prior history Defendant . Superior Ct.; affirmed, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965); cert. granted, 382 U.S. 925 (1965) Subsequent history Retrial on remand, defendant convicted, Ariz. Superior Ct.; affirmed, 450 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1969); rehearing denied, Ariz. Supreme Ct. March 11, 1969; cert. denied, 396 U.S. 868 (1969) Argument Oral argument HoldingThe Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded.Court membership Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Abe Fortas Case opinions Majority Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas Concur/dissent ClarkDissent Harlan, joined by Stewart, White Dissent White, joined by Harlan, Stewart Laws applied U.S. Const. amends. V, Fourteenth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5–4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogationby 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 againstself-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. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart. The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to Miranda, or Mirandizing a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards i.e. Miranda rights are custody and interrogation. Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. As of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins (June 1, 2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but choose not to unambiguously invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and which may be used in evidence.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 03:59:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015