To any policemen...question...(Miranda)

[Gawain 0]

This is from the blurb about the Kobe case, but not about the case in particular...

It was my understanding that police had to "Mirandize" anyone they were talking to in part of any kind of investigation (regardless of taking people into custody). Is that incorrect?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[freeflir29 0]

It's a tricky thing....when to Mirandize is a debateable question at best. Generally.....custody+questioning=interrogation and therefor Miranda. It's a whole lot up to the officer. Only lawyers can argue that out later.

[Kramer 0]

(I am not a police officer, but I am a Criminal Justice Major in college, so I know a thing or two).

As far as I know, you are correct. Anytime an official interrogates an individual, they have to inform them of their rights, regardless of whether there was an arrest or not.

Small chance I could be wrong, so don't sell the farm on my word, but I'm pretty sure you're correct.

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[quade 4]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012300b.htm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeflir29 0]

Oh BTW....you never HAVE to Mirandize anyone. A cop could arrest you and never Mirandize you. The only possible advantage that gives you as a suspect is getting any statements you made after the court deems you SHOULD have been Mirandized thrown out of court. That depends on your lawyer....

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Anytime an official interrogates an individual, they have to inform them of their rights, regardless of whether there was an arrest or not.

Sounds simple but then each side can argue what constitutes "interrogation."

[Kramer 0]

Quote

Sounds simple but then each side can argue what constitutes "interrogation."

Yeah that's true. I have come to learn that there is a lot of legal bullshit that goes along with arrests and policing.

The best bet seems to be: Read the guy his Miranda rights when you arrest him, just to cover your ass.

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The best bet seems to be: Read the guy his Miranda rights when you arrest him, just to cover your ass.

Not from a COP perspective. That's called "Over Mirandizing." You don't want to tell the guy he has rights until you need to.

[Kramer 0]

Really? I guess I had never thought of it that way. I'll learn all this BS eventually.

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[Kennedy 0]

There are lots of examples of when you don't have to Mirandize a person.

[for these statements, when I say "you," assume you are a police officer]

First, if you are just getting admin information, like name, DOB, address, etc you don't have to pull out the card, even if they are under arrest and in cuffs.

Second, as long as you don't ask any questions or dig for information in any way, you can let them talk til their heart's content.

There are more, but I can't think right now and am going to bed.

For cases generally weakening Miranda, look up the following

New York v Quarles
Oregon v Elstad
Colorado v Connelly
Colorado v Spring
Connecticut v Barrett
Patterson v Illinois
Duckworth v Eagoan
Pennsylvania v Muniz
McNeil v Wisconsin
Davis v US

As to what constitutes an interrogation for Miranda purposes, look into

Brewer v Williams
Rhode Island v Innis
Arizona v Mauro

Those two in bold distinguish a very fine line concerning Miranda.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Really? I guess I had never thought of it that way.

You have to learn to see it from all 3 sides. Cop, prosecuter, and defense. Then you'll have a handle on it....

[Kennedy 0]

Not only that, you have to determine exactly what constitutes an arrest [according to the courts]. It's not as clear cut as you think.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You have to learn to see it from all 3 sides. Cop, prosecuter, and defense. Then you'll have a handle on it....

Yeah, what he said.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

It's not as clear cut as you think.

Once you walk in the courthouse door two things happen. Truth goes out the window and EVERYTHING is debateable.

[skycop 0]

Miranda has alot to do with custody and control. From the news accounts I've heard he was told specifically, "you're not under arrest, you can leave anytime". Therefore Kobe wasn't in "custody". So Miranda doesn't apply, because Kobe was not under arrest or in custody. However, one could argue (or several high priced lawyers) that Kobe was under duress and under police control, and in a "police dominated environment" and he felt compelled to talk, because of the possible consequences if he did'nt.
It basically boils down to legal hair splitting and Lawyers almost always win that. The basic rule is, when in doubt, Mirandize the suspect.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

I am not a police officer, but I am a Criminal Justice Major in college, so I know a thing or two

One word of advise my friend, I've locked up a bunch of (mainly drunken) Criminal Justice Majors who THOUGHT they knew a thing or two. Reality and college are two different animals. Just remember that when (or if) you're out pounding beers and you have contact with the guys with shiny badges and the funny blue polyester outfits

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Nightingale 0]

The police must advise suspects of their "Miranda Rights" - their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. If a suspect is not in police custody (i.e., "under arrest"), the police do not have to warn him of his rights.

The police are very aware of when they have to read suspects their "Miranda Rights." The police will frequently question a suspect, specifically telling the suspect, "You are not under arrest, and are free to go. However, we would like you to answer some questions." After the suspect voluntarily answers questions, and sometimes if he refuses, he is arrested. The questioning, being voluntary and non-custodial, is usually admissible. After arrest, the police may have no interest in further questioning, and thus may not ever read the suspect his "Miranda Rights."


http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Criminal/Rights.html

[cvfd1399 0]

Any time they are officially under arrest or if a reasonable man would lead to believe that the person is under arrest you have to read them their rights. Also if you are questioning them with the possibility of them telling you self-incriminating statements you have to do it. It doesn't hurt to just do it anyway just in case they blurt out any info, but that is covered under a tasset admission anyway.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

he was told specifically, "you're not under arrest, you can leave anytime". Therefore Kobe wasn't in "custody". So Miranda doesn't apply, because Kobe was not under arrest or in custody.

That's it. It's actually harder for somebody like Kobe, who has a ton of exposure to attorneys, to argue he didn't understand what the cops were telling him when they said "you are free to go anytime".

[cvfd1399 0]

You are free to go anytime but if your rights were read just in case, anything you tell me will be used against your ass

[kallend 2,146]

Seems to me that if you're not under constraint and are told you're free to leave, leaving is the smart thing to do.

Of course, in Chicago things work differently. We had a bunch of high profile (death penalty) cases thrown out on account of police torturing the defendants. No knowing how many are still locked up, though; if the case is not high profile no-one seems interested in investigating.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

The Miranda case is interesting in legal circles because of what it was recognized by later Courts to be - an Unconstitutional exercise of power by the Miranda Court.

In Dickerson v. United States 530 U.S. 428 (2000), Rehnquist addressed the Miranda decision in striking down an Federal Statute that changed the presumption of coercion for interrogation without Miranda warnings. In fact, he wrote the majority opinion, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Only Scalia and Thomas dissented.

The Dickerson opinion was noteworthy because every justice on the Supreme Court agreed that rule of Miranda was not Constitutional.

In Dickerson the Supreme Court refused to overrule Miranda not on the basis of it being an Unconstitutional exercise of power, but on the basis of stare decisis - "let the decision stand."

The Supremes held that Miranda is such a big part of society that, despite the misgivings of the Court about the lack of Constitutional Authority to make the decision, the court would let it slide. In effect, why make "Dragnet" obsolete so that nobody in the future would understand what Joe Friday was saying about the "right to remain silent?"

Thomas and Scalia thought that if it is Unconstitutional it should be fixed. Their dissent was that the whole court thought Miranda was wrong. The dissent said to change it while the majority said to let it slide.

The point? Miranda is still being fought out and developed. What is true today for the warnings might not be true tomorrow.

My wife is hotter than your wife.