Check out some similar questions!

LuLu16 · Apr 10, 2009, 09:37 AM

I suffer from major depression, panic attacks, and insomnia. All verified by medical records.

I was in the parking lot at work and found a purse. I picked it up to bring it into the main office but I stopped in the washroom first. I picked up my lunch items and forgot the purse on the couch.

A week later an official at work stopped by to give me a "heads up" that an officer was going to interogate me regarding a lost purse and $300 missing from it and that he (the officer) had "terrified" another employee and he just wanted to let me know in advance.
This started my episode of panic attacks.

I called in sick the next two days as I was home unable to get out of bed, eat, or sleep because of the attacks.

The officer called me at home while I was off sick and that caused me to experience even more severe symptoms.

When I came back to work the officer asked me if I was feeling better and I told him that I still did not feel well.

At first I denied any knowledge of the purse. I then told him that I did pick the purse up to bring it to the office but that I stopped in the washroom first and forgot about it and left it on the couch. I clearly stated that I did not take the money. He said he didn't believe me and that if I signed a statement he would only issue me a ticket, like a traffic ticket, and I could go home. He wouldn't put me in handcuffs and take me to jail in front of my co-workers. I asked him "What do you want me to say?" He took a piece of paper out and told me to put my name, the date, state that I found the purse and took the money from it, and then draw a line and sign the document. My only thought at that moment was to get to a "safe" place so I did what the officer told me to do.

Needless to say I was fired from my job of 11 years (all my performance reviews have been excellent on my last one my supervisor wrote " My work ethic is commendable and appreciated"), unemployment benefits have been denied (I filed an appeal) and I have a court date for theft of lost/mislayed property.

How can I prove that the statement was indeed signed under duress? I consulted with my doctor about 2 weeks later as I was still experiencing symptoms of panic attacks.

Am I protected under ADA regulations?

JudyKayTee · Apr 10, 2009, 09:52 AM

ADA does not protect you in criminal matters UNLESS you have a good criminal Attorney.

You can certainly claim that you made the statement under duress but, again, I wouldn't even attempt that without an Attorney.

An Attorney may very well be VERY interested because you lost your employment over a coerced statement. I would call around and see if someone will meet with you to discuss this.

The Police, of course, are going to argue that they have no reason to "frame" you, that their interest is finding and punishing the guilty party.

You will have to argue that you forgot the purse was in the washroom and left it there.

You need an Attorney.

excon · Apr 10, 2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by LuLu16

Am I protected under ADA regulations?

Hello LuLu:

No. But, you could be protected under Miranda. That decision requires the cop to tell you that you didn't have to talk to him, and that you were entitled to a lawyer, and that ANYTHING you said would be used against you in a court of law... You've seen it on TV.

If he DIDN'T do that, then your confession might be thrown out of court. It's not going to help you get your job back, though.

But, like Judy said. It's going to take a GOOD lawyer to make this happen. Justice does NOT automatically occur. You have to MAKE it occur.

excon

ScottGem · Apr 10, 2009, 12:21 PM

Miranda may or may not apply here. You stated an officer, but you didn't state whether this was a police officer or a security officer hired by the company. I suspect it was the latter in which case Miranda would not apply.

Also Miranda would not apply until you were arrested. You can be questioned without being mirandized as long as you aren't arrested. It doesn't appear as if any criminal action has been taken against you. The only action was loss of employment.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't look like you have much recourse.

JudyKayTee · Apr 10, 2009, 12:22 PM

Good catch - I saw "Officer" but read "Police Officer." Maybe OP will come back and let us know.

twinkiedooter · Apr 10, 2009, 02:45 PM

She did say something about a ticket being issued as well so I doubt if it was a security guy and not a real cop.

ScottGem · Apr 10, 2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

She did say something about a ticket being issued as well so I doubt if it was a security guy and not a real cop.

What she said was; " if I signed a statement he would only issue me a ticket, like a traffic ticket, and I could go home".

One doesn't get issued a ticket for theft. This just sounds like a rent a cop trying to intimidate someone into signing a statement.

LuLu16 · Apr 13, 2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Good catch - I saw "Officer" but read "Police Officer." Maybe OP will come back and let us know.

It was a police officer that gave me the ticket. It was for "theft of lost/mislayed property". I was interrogated in my boss' office and he did not tell me my rights. No one else was present except me and the officer.

JudyKayTee · Apr 13, 2009, 01:19 PM

If the Police questioned you and you admitted to guilt but they did NOT read you your Miranda rights you can protest the arrest/ticket.

I would assume he will claim he DID read you your rights and that should be covered in your statement.

ScottGem · Apr 13, 2009, 05:28 PM

Its not that cut and dried. A person has to be mirandized BEFORE they are arrested. But you were never arrested. Also I've never heard of a "ticket" being issued for any crime of theft.

How do you know this was a police officer? I still have my doubts.

JudyKayTee · Apr 13, 2009, 06:48 PM

Scott, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm probably wrong) but the ticket is in lieu of an arrest, correct? So the Police Officer could read her her Miranda and then ticket her instead of carting her off?

Otherwise, yes, something isn't right here.

ScottGem · Apr 13, 2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Scott, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm probably wrong) but the ticket is in lieu of an arrest, correct? So the Police Officer could read her her Miranda and then ticket her instead of carting her off?

Otherwise, yes, something isn't right here.

But my problem here is I've never heard of getting a ticket for theft. Tickets are generally issued for non crminal offenses.

Fr_Chuck · Apr 13, 2009, 07:05 PM

Ok, a ticket in many states ( TN and GA for two) are summons to appear in court and can be used for many minor misdemeanors esp if they are taking you to city court, instead of state court.

Also police officers are allowed to LIE to you to get you to confess, He may have gotten her to confess, then did nothing but take that confession to the DA to be reviewed by a grand jury who will latter issue the actual criminal charge.

But I see no duress, officer did not threaten to beat you, did not stand over you with a club, keep you awake sitting in a chair.

You had the right to ask for an attorney . What you need to do is stop trying to be Perry Mason and hire a real attorney.

You can testify in court at the trial that you only signed because of the issues, but most likely the confessoinal will be allowed in.
But this is a evidence issue, that has to be fought in court with an attorney

Fr_Chuck · Apr 13, 2009, 07:09 PM

Scott I have to disagree, I can arrest and see a person go to jail and never be read their "rights" you only have to read someone their rights when they are a suspect and you are going to question them.

In her case, yes she should have been told her rights ( assuming she is in the US)

She may motion the courts to throw out the confession since she was not read her rights. But what she told her boss may be allowed since that is not protected.

JudyKayTee · Apr 14, 2009, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

But my problem here is I've never heard of getting a ticket for theft. Tickets are generally issued for non crminal offenses.

I've seen tickets issued for theft in stores in my area. If a confession is involved, Miranda is read. If not, no.

I guess it's not the same all over. The blurb usually is, "I could arrest you and take you out of here in handcuffs but instead of that ..."

ScottGem · Apr 14, 2009, 06:26 AM

The following is from the Supreme Court ruling in the Miranda case:

The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

The keyword here is "Custody". A person does not need to be mirandized until they are placed in the custody of a law enforcement officer. As long as a person is free to get up and leave, they do not have to be mirandized.

As for tickets for theft, are they actual tickets or are they bench warrants? A ticket is generally a legal device that allows someone to plead guilty and pay a fine without having to go to court. If there is no fine or plea section, then its not a ticket.

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Scott I have to disagree, I can arrest and see a person go to jail and never be read thier "rights" you only have to read someone thier rights when they are a suspect and you are going to question them.

Not quite. Yes a person can be arrested without being mirandized as long as they are not questioned. If they aren't mirandized, then whatever they say until they are, can't be used in their prosecution. But a person does not have to be mirandized before questioning them. For example, the police can pull in several people believed to be witnesses. They can question those people as to what they saw without mirandizing them. In the course of the question, one of those witnesses makes an incriminating statement, that statement would be admissible.

excon · Apr 14, 2009, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The keyword here is "Custody". A person does not need to be mirandized until they are placed in the custody of a law enforcement officer. As long as a person is free to get up and leave, they do not have to be mirandized.

Hello:

I'm going to chime in again. Scott is right about the term "custody", however I don't think he's right about how he's using the term...

I agree that technically, as long as someone can walk away, they are not in custody.. However, your average reasonable person wouldn't know he could walk away. Consequently, when a person is IN a room with a cop, that person is in "custody", in terms of Miranda.

I also disagree about the use of a confession by a third party witness who wasn't Mirandized. I suggest it CANNOT be used.

excon

ScottGem · Apr 14, 2009, 07:30 AM

Also from Justice Warren's decision;
By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Herein lies the rub. Would a person being interrogated by police believe they had freedom of action? I think that has to be determined on an individual case by case basis. It depends on several factors, including what the police said to the person, where the interrogation took place, etc.

In the OP's case, the questioning took place, not in a police station, but in her place of business. She was also aware that other people had been questioned. So, I don't think she would have had to be mirandized at that point.

As to using a confession elicited from someone questioned as a witness being used, we can disagree, but I stand by my contention that it can be used.

excon · Apr 14, 2009, 07:39 AM

Hello again, LuLu:

What you should take from this discussion is that the law is not absolute. In YOUR particular case, the quality of your lawyer may be the deciding factor in determining your guilt or innocence in a court of law.

excon

ScottGem · Apr 14, 2009, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, LuLu:

What you should take from this discussion is that the law in not absolute. In YOUR particular case, the quality of your lawyer may be the deciding factor in determining your guilt or innocence in a court of law.

excon

Agreed, but I don't know if a court of law is involved here. It appears her confession was used only to terminate her employment and that she has not been criminall prosecuted.