Help me prove this about Miranda warnings

[devldogs55]

I was talking to some of my buddies, and one of them said that they knew someone who got off of a drug charge because they weren't read their Miranda rights... while that might be true/possible, I just mentioned to them that you do not need to be read those rights when you are arrested.. only when the officer wants to question you while you are under arrest.

Now they are willing to swear that I am wrong, and I am willing to guarantee they are wrong. I would like something more than a wikipedia article to show them that proves that the constitution does not require the reading of those rights during an arrest. I think they've been watching COPS too much, because it just seems to common to see those words spoken at every arrest.. but that doesn't meant it's required by law.

What is a good source to show them they're wrong? Assuming that they are wrong I guess..

Thanks guys.

[AzDogs]

You are correct. Miranda is only required if you have someone in custody AND want to question them about the crime. For a source I would think reading the actual Miranda decision would be as good as any other. I would guess that i read Miranda to maybe 1 in 50 people that I arrest, maybe even less.

[RW302]

Two words covers it...Custodial interrogation.

As to only reading Miranda to 1 in 50 arrests or even less. How is that possible? To not be interviewing your arrestee’s means you’re not doing your job or not doing it thoroughly. I encourage questioning/interviewing of every arrestee. You'd be surprised at the info you can develop about the present crime being investigated and also other crimes.

[CruiserClass]

You are correct. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda. Not "focus of investigation" and not Custody + Passively Listening.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=384&invol=436

That link will take you to the actual case. The holding is right at the top, and the important part for you is 1) The prosecution may not use statements...stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody...unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards...

Nowhere does it say a case must be dropped, etc. Only that solicited statements can't be used in court.

[Taylor1430]

I would bet that there is more to the story and that the charge was tossed for some other reason....Perhaps the judge felt there was not enough PC for an original stop or something along those lines. Also, what was the drug arrest for? Was he already under arrest for something else and the officer asked him more incriminating questions?

A friend of mine in another jurisdiction was telling me a story about a guy on his shift locked up. They found a little bit of weed on him and he was placed under arrest. The officer asked him where he kept his stash at. The guy told him it was in his bedroom between the mattresses. The officer went in and retrieved it. The second part of the charge was tossed, but the original stop and the original weed held up.

[irishdep]

Cases/charges do get thrown out because of Miranda issues. Courts have not allowed evidence or statements because defendants were not Mirandized properly. Like the other posts state CUSTODY+INTEROGATION=MIRANDA.

[Chief Wiggum]

Cases/charges do get thrown out because of Miranda issues.

Only if after the statements are suppressed the remaining evidence is insufficent to support the charge.

[SgtCHP]

Miranda revisited:

http://www.cjcentral.com/miranda/

[Smurfette_76]

As to only reading Miranda to 1 in 50 arrests or even less. How is that possible? To not be interviewing your arrestee’s means you’re not doing your job or not doing it thoroughly. I encourage questioning/interviewing of every arrestee. You'd be surprised at the info you can develop about the present crime being investigated and also other crimes.

Well, hold on a minute. I often arrest people on outstanding charges that stem from other departments. In addition, if I'm serving a warrant that came from my department and it's one that an Officer generated and not a citizen, I still don't have the case information right there and don't have the time to sit and read their report, especially since I don't know what they do and don't have. Unless I'm arresting someone on one of my OWN warrants or one that I have knowledge about the case, I don't have the time to sit around doing interviews. Do you have any idea how many warrants we serve every day that we don't have incident reports on because no LEO investigated the case...a citizen went to the magistrate and obtained the warrant. I sorta take offense to the implication that we're not doing our jobs because we're not interviewing the arrestee...that a pretty blanketed statement there.

[AzDogs]

On scene investigation will get you PC for an arrest almost every time. If you goto just about any call you interview people on the spot to get the information you need. You don't show up at a scene and place people in handcuffs, read them Miranda and then begin your questioning. Interviewing someone is far different than an interrogation which would require Miranda. If you are reading Miranda to the majority of the people you arrest you must not be on patrol. Maybe the people taking offense to my statement work for agencies that have strict policies regarding reading everyone Miranda but it just doesn't work that way around here.

[Smurfette_76]

I agree with AZ and add that I personally (JMHO, mind you) don't understand departments that do across the board mirandizing just because someone is placed under arrest. I think that what that creates is Officers that cannot determine when Miranda is needed and when it's not, which is very important.

[Group 29]

Violations of Miranda don't result in thrown out cases, just thrown out statements. It might be that a statement was the only evidence that they had against him, and the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, but I am trying to think of a case exactly like that in my twenty plus years of drug investigations.

Maybe some misdemeanor possession charge or something, but I can't think of any serious drug felony charges where the only evidence we had was a confession.

[RW302]

I can't think of anyway I could defend one of my officers making 50 or more criminal arrests and only one of those required Miranda. As to working patrol, yes I'm there. Six years as a Patrol Officer, five years as a Detective now a Sgt in Patrol the past 2. If you take offense to my comment it was not intended as such.

[Group 29]

Whether to give some one Miranda rights or not depends on a lot of factors, some legal, and some tactical.

It's been discussed before that there are few worse feelings that going in and interviewing a defendant that you have been investigating for a long time, building some rapport with him, finally reading him Miranda, getting a good statement from him, and then coming out and having the arresting officer, who knows nothing about the case, say, "I can't believe you got him to confess. When I read him his rights when I hooked him up, he just asked for his lawyer."

[pulicords]

Basic advice for patrol officers:
1) Don't be in a hurry to make arrest.
2) Talk to a subject (interview) as much as possible before the arrest.
3) Once the suspect is under arrest, don't discuss the case or advise re: Miranda.
4) Keep your mouth shut and listen for spontaneous, unsolicited statements.
5) Only advise misdemeanor suspects of their constitutional rights after the above has occurred.
6) After informing them of their rights, only ask suspect if he/she understands. If the answer is "yes" and if they want to talk to you, proceed.
7) Don't ask additional questions (re: "Miranda") ie: "Do you want an attorney?", etc...
8) Only advise felony suspects if 1 through 4 is followed and they beg you to let them talk. Otherwise leave "Miranda" and the felony interrogations to detectives.