Miranda Question

[JCT]

Ok, so you have advised someone of their rights...and you ask them if they understand their rights...what happens if they refuse to answer the question, or if they insist that they do not understand their rights? Can what they say still be held against them in court?

[Bing_Oh]

If they refuse to answer the simple question, "Do you understand these rights as I've explained them to you?" I seriously doubt that they'll be answering any of the OTHER, slightly more important and relevant questions I plan on asking. So, that's a moot point.

If they just want to be a jerk and play the "I don't understand" game, then it's either skip the questions (as above, someone who wants to play that game probably won't give any useful answers anyway) or question away and let the prosecutor show that they they had the mental faculties to understand their rights when it goes to a motion to supress.

[SPD_404]

Bing Oh could not have answered that question any better than he did. I've personally never had that happen to me but he did hit the mark.

[J_Mann]

If they don't understand ask what they don't understand. Then take them to jail.

[Desert DPS]

I had a guy tell me he didn't understand his rights and wouldn't understand them even if I explained them to him a hundred times. I asked him if he would answer my questions and he didn't answer. He was lots of fun.

All we're required to do is read their rights to them, if they don't understand them that's their problem.

[SlowDownThere]

All we're required to do is read their rights to them, if they don't understand them that's their problem.

This is not true in NYS. Here, we need an acknowledgement that the rights are understood and waived. Failing that, they are treated as though the rights are not waived.

[SA13]

All we're required to do is read their rights to them, if they don't understand them that's their problem.

No it's your problem if you wish to ask questions pertaining to the crime, because any waiver of rights must be done knowingly and voluntarily, and the burden of proof is on the government (that means YOU) to show the suspect actually understood his rights, and knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. If you there is doubt about whether he actually understood his rights and was capable of waiving those rights you will lose any statements made by the suspect at a suppressing hearing, and could face civil and criminal liability for violating the suspect's rights. This most certainly is your problem.

[Fuzz]

This is not true in NYS. Here, we need an acknowledgement that the rights are understood and waived. Failing that, they are treated as though the rights are not waived.

Exactly....if they want to play games then I will not be questioning them. If they honestly do not understand their rights (age, medical reasons,mental issues) then I will not be questioning them until their mental capacity is established.

[FLPD698]

Exactly....if they want to play games then I will not be questioning them. If they honestly do not understand their rights (age, medical reasons,mental issues) then I will not be questioning them until their mental capacity is established.

The truth of the matter is that there’s a lot of judge dredds wannabes out on the field, that circumvent the law of their states every day, with disregard of the subjects rights. I will agree though that street scums are well versed in art of deception & play the 5-oh pretty well. In that case it is up to the officer to out-wit the scum & insure that the arrest sticks.

[Desert DPS]

No it's your problem if you wish to ask questions pertaining to the crime, because any waiver of rights must be done knowingly and voluntarily, and the burden of proof is on the government (that means YOU) to show the suspect actually understood his rights, and knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. If you there is doubt about whether he actually understood his rights and was capable of waiving those rights you will lose any statements made by the suspect at a suppressing hearing, and could face civil and criminal liability for violating the suspect's rights. This most certainly is your problem.

I understand that. No questions were asked about the crime after he stated he didn't understand his rights. I know I can't question someone if they invoke or say they don't understand their rights. I wouldn't do that. I guess I should have worded my reply differently. I knew what I meant but I didn't convey it well. Sorry for any confusion.

The arrest did stick.

[LeanG]

Ok, so you have advised someone of their rights...and you ask them if they understand their rights...what happens if they refuse to answer the question, or if they insist that they do not understand their rights? Can what they say still be held against them in court?

You have to cease asking them further questions if they do not understand (for whatever reason) because it wouldn't be admitted in court. However, any spontaneous remarks will be admitted. I'm pretty careful. If they say no, then I really have nothing else to say. I do make small talk with them on the way to the jail, and its funny what they may reveal about the crime. But I don't include it on my arrest affadavit because they did not waive their rights.