| Author | Post |
|---|
Sonora Rebel
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 11:14 pm |
|
pkbites wrote: budda64_99 wrote I'm being handcuffed by one (without them reading me my rights),
This idea that an officer has to read you your rights immediately upon arrest, even while trying to cuff you is nonesense from television. Miranda rights only have to be given after one is in custody, AND only if they are going to be asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. If you weren't interogated after being taken into custody Miranda is not needed at all.
NOT TRUE! Miranda is given at such time the individual is advised he/she has been placed under arrest, which is advisement against self incriminating 'Res Geste' statements (unsolicitied comments) by the accused. Confinement is definately an arrest. Interrogation has nothing to do with it.Last edited on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 11:15 pm by Sonora Rebel
|
KBCraig
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 463 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 11:01 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: NOT TRUE! Miranda is given at such time the individual is advised he/she has been placed under arrest, which is advisement against self incriminating 'Res Geste' statements (unsolicitied comments) by the accused. Confinement is definately an arrest. Interrogation has nothing to do with it. Questioning has everything to do with it. The requirement to notify someone of their rights only applies if the subject is in custody and being questioned.
Notification that they're under arrest isn't even required, nor are physical restraints. If a reasonable person would reasonably believe they weren't free to leave, they're under arrest.
|
Wynder
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Jul 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bear, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1234 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 12:07 am |
|
KBCraig wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: NOT TRUE! Miranda is given at such time the individual is advised he/she has been placed under arrest, which is advisement against self incriminating 'Res Geste' statements (unsolicitied comments) by the accused. Confinement is definately an arrest. Interrogation has nothing to do with it. Questioning has everything to do with it. The requirement to notify someone of their rights only applies if the subject is in custody and being questioned.
Not entirely, no.
First, a person must be in custody. So, for instance, if I were a law enforcement officer and I walked up to a bystander on the street and asked them what happened and they said, "I shot that man!" there is no Miranda violation there because there is no custody.
Second, the officer must be asking statements that might serve to incriminate you. Physical information (Name, Address, DOB, etc.) are not considered incriminating and are exempt from being withheld from police during the booking process.
Lastly, if an officer doesn't NEED your statements, he may decide not to Mirandize you. For example, if you commited a rape in the middle of a public event and there were ten different TV cameras on you and 200 witnesses, they may ask you, "Why did you do it?" without Mirandizing you. Because they have enough evidence to convict you anyway... they simply won't admit those statements in as evidence.
Arrests generally stand even if statements are thrown out, though if the statements made up the sum whole of the prosecutions' case, then they'd wind up releasing you anyway.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 03:42 am |
|
Y'all need to cite authority, please.
Miranda vs Arizona: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html
|
codename_47
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 07:58 pm |
|
The only thing dumber than pleading guilty is representing yourself in court.
Statements like this drive me nuts. There is nothing wrong or stupid about self-representation. If you are smart enough to discern when you should take a person's life, then you are smart enough to read the law, interpret the law, and form and argument.
42 usc 1983. Go get em!
|
Current time is 06:04 pm | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
