Check out some similar questions!

dukefan4141 · Dec 3, 2010, 06:11 PM

A policeman saw my friend and I smoking marijuana and we willingly came down to the police station with him. He informed us that we were not under arrest, and thus my questioning of whether my rights are violated.

1. The police told us we needed to produce, write, and sign statements. I have heard that I did not have to sign a statement of what happened, but the police told us we were required to. Is this a violation?

2. The police told us we were not under arrest. We willingly helped them out with whatever they needed. A policeman then told us he was going to escort us in his car back to our dorm. I asked if we were could walk back to our dorm, because we were not under arrest (believing that was my right as a citizen not under arrest). The police officer looked at me grudgingly and said that we were not allowed to and drove us back. Does this violate my rights as well?

Any help is appreciated.

excon · Dec 3, 2010, 06:42 PM

Hello d:

1. They are only required to "mirandize" you IF they planned to use your statement against you in court. Since they DIDN'T mirandize you, they cannot use your statement against you in court. So, that's a GOOD thing.

2. Because they took you home instead of letting you walk isn't really a violation and makes no sense on top of it. MOST cons would LOVE a ride back to where the cops busted them.

excon

cdad · Dec 3, 2010, 06:43 PM

It doesn't sound like a violation as they did find you taking a controlled substance that could impair your judgement. So in taking you back to your dorm they were covering their butts.

ScottGem · Dec 3, 2010, 06:51 PM

If you had been dealing with the real police, probably. But you weren't, you were dealing with campus security. By attending the university you give up some of your rights.

What you signed cannot be used against you in a court of law. However, it MIGHT be usable against you by the school for disciplinary actions.

Fr_Chuck · Dec 3, 2010, 09:23 PM

Scott most college police are real police in fact they are highly paid officers with State police powers but only on college property. Here in Atlanta for example, the college police are higher paid than all but one city police department and they are much higher trained. I remember many people getting traffic tickets from the college police who did not take them serious till they found out they were not handled by college, not handled by city court, but they had to go to state court for the traffic tickets since the officers were state police officers, only with limited area of jurisdiction.

1. police can lie, they are allowed to tell you that they have all sorts of evidence, they can tell you to confess and you will go home and more. This is common practice of all police departments I know.

Next they can't use any questions they ask, if they did not inform you of your rights, but they can ask, it is only a violation of rights if they use it in court.

Next they can lie to get you to write a confession, again done every day.
Sounds more like they are going to merely use it for college level issue, most likely report your use to Dean of Students for them to deal with it.

ScottGem · Dec 4, 2010, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Scott most college police are real police in fact they are highly paid officers with State police powers but only on college property.

Not so sure about. I don't mean to minimize the skill and professionalism of college/university police forces. I wasn't assuming the officers in this instance were merely rent-a-cops. I'm just not sure how common it is for them to have full police powers even if only within their jurisdiction.

As we all agree, anything they said or signed cannot be used in a court of law unless they were fully mirandized. So I have to wonder what was the purpose of making them sign such statements. That's why I think they were enforcing part of a student conduct code for ND that is different than secular law.

excon · Dec 4, 2010, 06:31 AM

Hello again:

".... nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....

It COULD be argued that the passage above means the cops can't use the statement AT ALL. Certainly, the statements were coerced under the guise of a "criminal case", even if the criminal charges were dismissed...

In my view, there is NO substantial difference between the cops presenting the illegally obtained evidence in COURT, or whether they present the illegally obtained evidence to school authorities. The objective of the cop is the same - to obtain a sanction based upon illegally collected evidence...

The Constitution says they can't do that.

excon