General Forums >> General Discussions >> Miranda warning

Rate

Miranda warning

1,182 Views
39 Replies Flag as inappropriate
179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top

Posted over 2 years ago

 

I have a question concerning the Miranda warning, in my class we have been discussing the Miranda warning and it has gotten some mixed reactions to this scenerio,


A guy is walking down the street with a loaded gun in his waistband. The officer stops him and finds that the man does not have a permit to have the gun, he is arrested and was not read his Miranda rights.


Upon getting to the station the arresting officer notices a wanted poster with this guy's face on it in connection to a robbery. The officer notifies the detective that he has the guy that is on the wanted poster and the detective goes over and puts the guy in a line-up and is identified by the victim, the detective then arrests the guy and does not read him his rights.


The guy's attorney wants all of the charges suppressed because of this. What would a judge do?


I stated that since the original officer had probable cause to stop the guy (gun in waistband) he had the right to arrest the man without reading him his rights since he was in violation of the gun law. But the line-up identification and the subsequent arrest on robbery should be suppressed because he was not read his rights.


My classmates are also divided on this half say that all the evidence should be suppressed and the rest agree with me. I was wondering who would be right on this scenerio? I appreciate any and all advice on this. I have read everything I could find online about the Miranda warnings and I feel that my stand is the correct one. Thanks in advance for your advise.

1067_med_max50

288 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

He was arrested again while he was already under arrest?


I don't believe in an eye for an eye...I believe in two eyes for an eye.

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Yes according to the scenerio that was presented to the class, this is where we are at odds on this.

1067_med_max50

288 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Interesting. I didn't know that was possible.  


If the cops didn't question the guy why would his Miranda rights be a problem?


I don't believe in an eye for an eye...I believe in two eyes for an eye.

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

From what I figured he was questioned about the gun before he was arrested for the gun charge and for the robbery it did not say if he was questioned just put into a line-up and identified by the victim of the robbery, so he was arrested by the detective on the robbery charge and was not advised of his Miranda rights.

1067_med_max50

288 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Well, I think you're right. I hope a LEO will chime in on this one?


I don't believe in an eye for an eye...I believe in two eyes for an eye.

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Thank you and I hope so too. Like I have said I have read everything that I could find on the Miranda warning and did not come across anything like this and I want to say that my reply is the best for the scenerio. Thank you for your assistance.

Rafngreenblack_max50

885 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation/questioning. In your scenario the male was arrested for possession of a firearm without a permit. No in-custody questioning = no need for Miranda.


Your subject was then identified as a potential suspect in another crime, picked out by a witness, and subsequently charged with another crime. If that was indeed the totality of the situation then again, no in-custody questioning = no Miranda required.


People get sideways with Miranda and think its required all subjects be advised of their rights immediately upon an arrest. The only reason to advise someone of their rights per Miranda is if they are in custody/not free to leave/being detained, and they are being asked questions which could potentially implicate them in a crime.


Now, what constitutes "in-custody" or detention is a whole different argument/debate....

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Thank you so very much!! I did not realize that and your information is helpful. I really appreciate this and it helps me understand the Miranda better than what I have been reading on the different sites that have to do with the Miranda.

Rafngreenblack_max50

885 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning


Its Wikipedia, not a LE specific site, but it actually has quite a bit of information available on this topic. The court cases listed especially are worth the read.

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Thank you for the information to the site MH557 I really appreciate this a lot. You have been a great help to me.

Avatar_max160_max160_max50

2600 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

MH557 nailed it.


Hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.

"It's not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy -December 4, 2000

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Yes he did and I am truely gratefull for the information. Now I maybe able to convince my classmates of it and stop the argument that started because of the discussion on it.

Death_max50

1275 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

MH557 is right on.


Questioning could refer to actual questions or actions or behaviors by LEO's that could illicit an incriminating testimonial response by the arrestee/detainee. Independent development of evidence subsequent to arrest (fingerprints, dna, photographs) are not testimonial. This is exactly how cold cases are solved multiple years after arrest on a lesser charge.

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

That is really interesting. I did not know that cold cases were sometimes solved that way. Thank you for the information, I really appreciate it a lot and it will help me in my discussion group in class. There is so much to learn when it comes to the Miranda warning and what you can and cannot do to obtain information without violating a persons constitutional rights. I am so glad that I was able to ask this on this site, because I knew that the LEO's would point me in the right direction for information. Y'all are really wonderful.

Just_passin__thru_max50

5998 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

See ?


We gots some purdy smart people up in here.


10-8....


The Guy !
Photobucket

Honoring the Fallen

White_shirt_max50

4985 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

MH557 you da man. I blame the show COPS for the misunderstanding on Miranda. Time and time again I watch an arrest and they frisk and cuff and read the Miranda Warning. This is show boating and not how it is done. While enroute to booking the suspect may speak freely on his/her own. Miranda is not required as the suspect is not being interviewed/interrogated.

100_0364_max50

447 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Not to get too far off topic, hijack a thread or open up a whole new can of worms but..............


The only problem I see with this scenario is this guy was arrested for openly carrying a firearm. His lawyer could argue that his second amendment right was violated and the initial arrest was unjustfied. (Not that this would hold any weight in that he was found to be a suspect in a previous robbery) I think the initial charge could be dropped.  Many states only require you to have a permit to conceal the firearm on your person not openly carry. This is a hot topic right now in my part of Missouri. I am not saying I agree with it either.


MH557 hit it on the head about Miranda. In custody AND asking guilt seeking questions= Miranda. One without the other= Nothing.


http://www.fowlergaragedoorservice.com

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

@ rookie6, Thank you for this information. I did not know that in some states that a person can carry a weapon (gun) without a permit. I had thought that you had to have a permit in every state. this information is greatly appreciated and I can pass this onto my classmates ...like I stated earlier y'all are the greatest and the information that you have given me has been so helpful in my learning process.

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8265 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

A great thread topic.  Thanks also Dayngerus, for hitting on this aspect  - behavior that is intended to illicit response/confession from the arrestee/detainee, therefore requiring mirandization.


Such behaviors are often illustrated in classes like yours, helen23, so you might want to include questions in this debate or future ones.


Dayngerus says ...



MH557 is right on.


Questioning could refer to actual questions or actions or behaviors by LEO's that could illicit an incriminating testimonial response by the arrestee/detainee. Independent development of evidence subsequent to arrest (fingerprints, dna, photographs) are not testimonial. This is exactly how cold cases are solved multiple years after arrest on a lesser charge.


Img_3413_sq90_max50

717 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

I could be wrong but I think what Rookie was saying is that not all states require the weapons to be concealed. Some states permit open carry. Again I could be wrong I believe permits are required for all handguns. The difference in States is are they permitted to be open carry or must they be concealed. In some states the first arrest would have stood and in others it may not have because of the open carry. That is why gun owners are told to know the laws of the states they are traveling through so they are in compliance with whatever state they may be in (and in NY state jurisdiction as NY City has stricter laws than the rest of the state).

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Thanks to everyone who has replied to my question!! The more I read and gather information on the Miranda as well as learning about gun laws in the various states, I realize that there is a lot the officers have to do in order to get all the information on a case and to keep from having any or all evidence that is collected as well as statements or confessions supressed because it was obtained by other means. There is a lot that I need to learn and I am thankful for my classes as well as searching for answers but the biggest help has been the LEO's and other people on this site who have offered advise as well as tips on what to do and what not to do...it is because of this that has strengthened my resolve to do the best that I can while in college and apply all that I have learned to the field of work that I am going  to be going into after graduation. I am proud to be apart of this site and learning from experienced officers. Everyone has been a huge help to me. Thanks!!

Wredcedar_max50

1244 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Since the original senerio said 'officer' not deputy, I assumed this was in a city, and while many states allow open carry, many cities in these states ban open carry, thus you could be arrested for violation a no open carry city ordinance in an open carry state.  I could name several examples fo cities that ban open carry in open carry state, but there aree to many to mention.

Untitledma28839986-0002_max50

2388 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Bump MH557

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8265 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

MH557's input here raises another important point your class should be discussing whenever your prof presents a scenario. 


Mirandization should be seen in a continuum - as an extension of in-custody/detainment once an interview is to take place.


Example:  A minor is taken to the police station and questioned regarding his possible role in the shooting death of a police officer.  During the course of the lengthy interview into the wee hours, and without his parents present, the youth confesses to the crime.  Although the youth might have been free to leave at any time, he was unaware of his right to query "Am I free to leave?" in order to discern if he was in custody.  Rather, he had only mentioned that he was tired and wanted to go home. 


Can the minor's confession be admitted as evidence?   


Re MH557's very important question:  At what point did/does "custody" or detention begin?


MH557 says ...



Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation/questioning. In your scenario the male was arrested for possession of a firearm without a permit. No in-custody questioning = no need for Miranda.


Your subject was then identified as a potential suspect in another crime, picked out by a witness, and subsequently charged with another crime. If that was indeed the totality of the situation then again, no in-custody questioning = no Miranda required.


People get sideways with Miranda and think its required all subjects be advised of their rights immediately upon an arrest. The only reason to advise someone of their rights per Miranda is if they are in custody/not free to leave/being detained, and they are being asked questions which could potentially implicate them in a crime.


Now, what constitutes "in-custody" or detention is a whole different argument/debate....


179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Real good scenrio, I would believe from what I have read that the minor was detained unlawfully and was not advised of his rights nor were his parents present which from my understanding when a crime is committed by a minor the parents have to be made aware and have to be present  when the minor is questioned. I do not think that the confession would be used as evidence since he 1. a  minor, 2. his parents did not allow the questioning to happen, 3. the parents were not there . but on the other hand if the minors parents gave consent to him being questioned but were not present then that would present a different situation. Then I beleive since the parents gave consent then the confession could be used as evidence. This would definately make a great disscussion in class. I think that this would be a tricky situation for the police because the person is a minor and did not know that he could ask questions as to if he could leave or not.

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8265 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Yes, but it has occurred.  We have to ask ourselves why.  So you can also turn the scenario around to ask...what existing factors would have led investigators to conduct the interview as they did?  LEOs are well-trained.  Even in the heat of a situation, an LE team is unlikely to jeopardize critical evidence leading to the capture of a cop-killer. 


Again - what constitutes in-custody/detainment? 


Can a youth waive parent presence?  If so, did the youth make statements to waive that right?


It goes on. 


 

179509_413913675314782_526027874_n_max50

33 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

You are so right, there is so much to learn about different situations and how to go about the proceedurs that are not going to jepordize the case. I have always respected the law and the officers who put their lives on the line everyday and it tears me up whenever I hear of an officer killed in the line of duty or even when they are off duty. I am trying to learn as much as I can so I can also do the right thing if I am ever in a situation like the scenerio that you presented involving a minor. Thank you so very much for all of your input to my question.

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8265 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Yes, Helen, once minors are introduced into the scenario, opens up onto a whole 'nuther universe. 


I am sure the experts here could propose us all an infinite number of scenarios and twists on scenarios based upon their experiences and the experiences of their colleagues. 


Let the quiz begin! lol

White_shirt_max50

4985 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 2 years ago

 

Marly & Helen. You are confusing a minor with a juvenile. They are not one of the same. A minor once in custody and subject to an interview/interrogation is read his miranda warning and will sign a waiver. A juvenile cannot be interrogated without either an attorney, juvenile officer or parent being present. You may speak to either without a warning however, once they are developed as a suspect miranda must be advised.

Next Page >