 |
My son in law recently returned home from Iraq and was pulled over and arrested for DUI. He elected for a blood test and 30 days later they reported it at 0.08%. When arrested he was never read his rights. Were his civil rights violated? Does this constitute the possibility of them having to drop the arrest complaint. He lives in California. Please advise.
He needs to relay this to an attorney and see where it leads.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCKK4493
He was likely advised of his right before submitting to something as intrusive as a blood test.
Either way, he should have competent legal counsel.
Hello J:
Your son only needs to be given his Miranda rights if he's going to be interrogated. If he's just going to be arrested, and not spoken to, then the cops don't have to give him Miranda. OR, the cops have no intention of using statements he made against him. Either way, you'll need another defense.
excon
If he was arrested and not read his Miranda then yes his rights were violated. But what does that really mean to him? It simply means that anything he said to the arresting officers or without counsel present cannot be used oin court. THAT'S ALL.
You said he "elected" the blood test. That indicates he had to sign something agreeing to it. That would indicatehe was informed of his rights.
So the bottomline is if he told the arresting officer that he had just come from a bar where he had 6 beers that couldn't be used in court. But the results of the blood test is admissible and that's enough to convict.
Sorry Scott and others, but you misunderstand the Miranda rights greatly,
I have as others do all the time, arrest, and convict people without them ever hearing their rights, there is no requirement at all to be read your rights at the time you are arrested,
You ONLY, get read your rights before you are questioned and this does not apply either to normal questions done at a traffic stop, such as were you drinking. Also for the DUI tests, you give those rights away when you take a drivers license, there is a law of applied consent, so you have already agreed to do the test, and will lose your licesne if you don't agree to the test.
So for an arrest on DUI, there was no questioning, the blood test was all the proof they neded, I doubt he was taken to the station and asked to sign a confession to drinking.
So no none of his rights were violated, this is normal, legal standard procedures. In fact the only thing I see wrong, they waited 30 days to arrest,a and did not hold him for a few hours waiting for the blood test. That is what we always did. And arrest them on the spot.
And actually on a routine traffic stop, the things the driver says can be used against him, the officer can ask have you been drinking, and if he says yes, this can actually be used against him. Part of it, is that merely the fact he has been drinking is not proof he is DUI. In some states they have another charge, driving while impaired, on that the blood level may be under but the things the driver sees, the wayt he man speaks is all used against him,
The Miranda rights only apply if and when a person is first a suspect, a person being questioned who is not a suspect is not required to be told the miranda rights, and next there has to be an questioning, If a officer and DA has all the proof they need, and there is no questioning, there is no need for miranda to ever be read.
And as excon said, they can qestion him all they want, without miranda, but all that does is not allow them to use anything he said in court. It does not make the arrest or conviction invalid, if there was enough evidence that was not found out by the confession.
It's my understanding that the Miranda Rights only have to be given when one is being arrested on a felony charge. In your son's case this is a misdemeanor so I don't believe they were required to Mirandize him.
No I don't think I misunderstand Miranda at all. The purpose behind the reading of the so-called Miranda rights (after a 1966 Supreme Court decision) is to make sure a person being arrested is aware of his rights against self-incrimination and to have an attorney represent them. If someone is arrested and not "mirandized", then any statements they make without counsel present will probably not be admissible in court.
However, I was not aware that when you get a driver's license you sign away certain rights.
Nothing that you said, however, contradicts the answer I gave. Not getting read Miranda simply means that anything that was said to the arresting officers may not be used in court. But the blood test, which he agreed to (either as part of getting a drivers license or specifically related to that arrest) was legal and the results sufficient to convict.
Hello again, JQuote:
Originally Posted by JCKK4493
What we all AGREE on, is that any statements he may have made CANNOT be used against him in court. If they tried to do so, and succeeded, that would be an issue for appeal.
Statements made by suspects, and their use in court, IS the only issue Miranda addresses. Since your son apparently DIDN'T make any statements, and the basis for the arrest is not being questioned, in my view, they will NOT drop the complaint. In your case, I don't believe Miranda even to be an issue.
Whether the cops were or weren't required to Mirandize can be discussed another time.
In your sons case, however, with a competent attorney, the basis for the arrest may very well be questioned. I just don't think Miranda is his get out of jail free card.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 AM. |