I was recently arrest an charger with drug possion drug trafficking under the influions an possion of sales.so if arresting officer forgot to read me my miranda rights before interrogation or questioning an did so in the middle of interrogation an hand me in hancuffs would my case get dropped when I go to court? Or would this not matter? In the state of califorina

You should have been Mirandized when they put the cuffs on you.
But they will say you were only brought in for questioning at first.
When they decided they could charge you, you were Mirandized, they will say.
Your lawyer may be willing to try to argue that it wasn't soon enough.
I wouldn't count on it, especially if you have priors.

Hello j:

or would this not matter? In the state of califorinaIt absolutely WILL matter if you can prove it. Stop talking to him.

Excon

I might be wrong for California, but they don't have to Miranize you until they charge you.

Stop talking.

Hello J:

Miranda was a Supreme Court decision, so EVERY state MUST comply. Plus, in order to ask even ONE question, they must "Mirandize". That would be, of course, if they INTEND to use what the suspect says against him..

excon

Thank you for the clarification. It was my belief you had to be charged first. I guess I was mistaken.

You should have been Mirandized when they put the cuffs on you.
But they will say you were only brought in for questioning at first.
When they decided they could charge you, you were Mirandized, they will say.
Your lawyer may be willing to try to argue that it wasn't soon enough.
I wouldn't count on it, especially if you have priors.

Exactly, cops say reading your rights as you are cuffed is Hollywood.
They say they do not have to read you your rights until they are ready to ask you incriminating questions, are being finger printed and booked. They say you are 'not arrested' or charged until that point.

Hello again, J:

Browbeating a confession out of somebody so they CAN charge him, and THEN telling him he doesn't have to say anything else, doesn't make a lot sense.

excon

No, it doesn't, but it happens every day.

Hello again, J:

No, it doesn't, but it happens every day.Yeah.. Cops don't care a whole lot about the Constitution or defendant's rights..

Excon

They have no obligation to read you your "rights" at the time of arrest. They only have to read them prior to questioning if you are a suspect. You can be questioned as a witness, but as soon as they think you are a suspect they have to read you your rights prior to questioning.

And no this will not get the case dismissed, it falls under the exclusionary rule. The information you gave them prior to be given your rights, may be excluded, but your attorney will have to file a motion to have that done. Merely not getting your rights read does not dismiss any case, only restricts evidence that can be used.

Yes. I was mistaken. Just asked my son who is a cop on the up and up.

He said that the Miranda must be given "before questioning someone about a crime that may cause the offender to incriminate themselves by the answers they give."

So, there, you have that from a GOOD COP.

To further this up, Miranda V Arizona( 1966) had several requirements, the person has to be in a custodial situation, and has to be done prior to interrogation

If statements made prior to Miranda warning is used in court, the defendant has the right to take the stand to contradict the statements ( Harris V New York 1971)

If the defendant says something before Miranda, but repeats the same statement after receiving Miranda warnings, it may still be used in court. (Oregon V Elstad 1985)

Questions regarding understanding DUI or drug testing, name, address, date of birth and so on, do not have to be done under Miranda. (Pennsylvania v Muniz 1990)

A coerced statement done without Miranda does not automatically overturn a conviction. it has to be determined if it was a harmless error (Arizona V Fulminate 1991)

Fruit of poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to physical evidence derived from statements in violation o Miranda. ( United States v Patane 2004)


There have been over 20 cases that have altered by adding or taking away from Miranda over the years.

Hello Padre:

You can be questioned as a witness, but as soon as they think you are a suspect they have to read you your rights prior to questioning.Technically, you're correct. But, practically, you're not..

If some cop is being tricky by NOT reading everybody their Miranda warnings, if the "witness" he's interviewing is smarter than the cop, he can BLURT out, "I DID IT", and that confession CAN'T be used in court. Even IF Miranda warnings were read AFTER he blurted it out, and he confesses AGAIN afterwards, the confession can still NEVER be used.

Excon

Technically, you're correct. But, practically, you're not..

If some cop is being tricky by NOT reading everybody their Miranda warnings, if the "witness" he's interviewing is smarter than the cop, he can BLURT out, "I DID IT", and that confession CAN'T be used in court. Even IF Miranda warnings were read AFTER he blurted it out, and he confesses AGAIN afterwards, the confession can still NEVER be used.

Excon

Yup... What he said, according to my cop son, this is correct.

Actually it can, Rode Island V Innis 1980 allows spontaneous statements to be admissible before being Mirandized, as long as the statement was not a answer to a police question.

So if the police officer did not ask, did you do it, and they person just yelled, it is now allowed by Supreme Court ruling

Most police academy do not teach full Constitutional Law, just the basic Miranda rights to make sure officers do say it at each arrest before questioning. Or at arrest.

But a good DA can get most spontaneous statements in

Hello again, Padre:

But a good DA can get most spontaneous statements inAnd, a good lawyer can keep them out.

Ain't the law cool?

Excon

Why they make the big bucks. They have a love for US Constitutional law here in China. Fun part of working at a Law School