Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Troopers killer resentenced
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Baron Driver" data-source="post: 1348041" data-attributes="member: 748"><p>Perhaps you misunderstood me. If Cop A sees Criminal B smoking marijuana on a public sidewalk and arrests him, there is generally no need for a miranda warning that you are so familiar with seeing on your average prime time cop drama. Criminal B will still be charged, and most likely convicted of possession of marijuana. Assuming that the officer can testify as to what he observed and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, in fact, marijuana. If they protest at trial, "But he never read me my rights!" (as pro se defendants are often prone to exclaim with a gleam of ignorance in their eyes), the Prosecution's response will likely be a slightly more eloquent variation of, "so what?"</p><p></p><p>Miranda is only required for custodial interrogations. Think of it as a mathematical formula. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda. If the defendant is not in custody and an officer intends to question him, then Miranda is not required if the circumstances are such that an ordinary person would feel free to leave. If the defendant is in custody, but the officer does not intend on interrogating him, again, Miranda is not required.</p><p></p><p>Miranda warnings only become necessary when a defendant is reduced to custody and interrogated by law enforcement. If, at that time the officer fails to mirandize the defendant, anything the defendant says during that interrogation will be excluded at trial. This doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal will go free; there may be sufficient evidence to convict without a confession.</p><p></p><p>All of this is a rather lengthy way of pointing out that just because an officer arrests someone, they are not automatically required to read miranda, and a criminal will not necessarily go free just for lack of it.</p><p></p><p>I will agree with you that there is generally no need to rush justice, and I would rather make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed. I just wanted to try and clarify this often misunderstood aspect of criminal law.</p><p></p><p><u>**Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice. It is merely a purely academic discussion on certain aspects of Constitutional law. If you have questions regarding the law and/or your rights or obligations under such, consult an attorney licensed in your state.**</u></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Baron Driver, post: 1348041, member: 748"] Perhaps you misunderstood me. If Cop A sees Criminal B smoking marijuana on a public sidewalk and arrests him, there is generally no need for a miranda warning that you are so familiar with seeing on your average prime time cop drama. Criminal B will still be charged, and most likely convicted of possession of marijuana. Assuming that the officer can testify as to what he observed and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, in fact, marijuana. If they protest at trial, "But he never read me my rights!" (as pro se defendants are often prone to exclaim with a gleam of ignorance in their eyes), the Prosecution's response will likely be a slightly more eloquent variation of, "so what?" Miranda is only required for custodial interrogations. Think of it as a mathematical formula. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda. If the defendant is not in custody and an officer intends to question him, then Miranda is not required if the circumstances are such that an ordinary person would feel free to leave. If the defendant is in custody, but the officer does not intend on interrogating him, again, Miranda is not required. Miranda warnings only become necessary when a defendant is reduced to custody and interrogated by law enforcement. If, at that time the officer fails to mirandize the defendant, anything the defendant says during that interrogation will be excluded at trial. This doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal will go free; there may be sufficient evidence to convict without a confession. All of this is a rather lengthy way of pointing out that just because an officer arrests someone, they are not automatically required to read miranda, and a criminal will not necessarily go free just for lack of it. I will agree with you that there is generally no need to rush justice, and I would rather make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed. I just wanted to try and clarify this often misunderstood aspect of criminal law. [U]**Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice. It is merely a purely academic discussion on certain aspects of Constitutional law. If you have questions regarding the law and/or your rights or obligations under such, consult an attorney licensed in your state.**[/U] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Troopers killer resentenced
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
