Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Miranda Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welchs

New Member
I also have a question about the Miranda Rights.
I am 20 years old and am going to court in 2 months (Sept 9, 2002) for a supposed DUI. I was giving a friend a ride home from a bar because he had a dangerous amount to drink and wanted to make sure he got home safe. On the way I encountered an unexpected road block and was forced out of my car.

Over all they were nice to me but they did not read me my miranda rights before I was arrested. I passed all the tests except for their breathaliser (which they said was not to be used in court) and was taken to jail. A friend of mine said that he thought that when someone was given a DUI all rights were waived in that entering a car when under the influence takes away your rights and that they assumed that I was not sober enough to understand them in the first place. However, they DID make me sign a card/form saying that I understood what was happening and asking whether or not I refused the STATE breathaliser test which CAN be used in court (which I refused on the basis of my right as an American citizen).

Upon my understanding, if everything I assume or know to be true is in fact true, doesn't the fact that they did not read me my miranda rights make the case completely null and void? My ignorance of the law may prove true here but I surely hope not because I could use this.

If someone could give me any useful information here it would be greatly appreciated as I am a college student and cannot afford a decent lawyer.

Thanks,
Lauren R. Welch
student, Kennesaw State University
 
Hi Lauren,
I am not an attorney, but my understanding of the Miranda Rights when arrested DO NOT have to be read to you until the police start asking you any questions pertaining to the arrest.. Hope this helps!
 
My understanding is that when you are being arrested, your Miranda rights have to be read to you. That means that whatever you may say/stammer after they notify you that you are being arrested can be used against you. With regard to the DUI, you weren't arrested.

Simply because you may have been arrested without being read Miranda does not mean that (1) if you were caught subject to a voluntary search you aren't guilty of the crime (2) that if you were caught but weren't read Miranda during the arrest, that all the evidence flies out the window. It wouldn't make sense to throw everything out -- it is merely the "fruit from the poisonous tree" -- the evidence as a potential result of your not knowing your rights that is thrown out.
 
DEFINATLY, ANYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE READ THEIR RIGHTS. EVEN FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH ARE AFFORDED AN INTERPRETER TO HAVE THE MIRANDA RIGHTS READ. THE FACT THAT THEY THOUGHT YOU WERE TO DRUNK OR INTOXICATED TO UNDERSTAND THEM SEEMS LIKE A "COP-OUT", AND YES THE PUN IS INTENDED. WHAT IF THEY THOUGHT A PERSON WAS NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS OF THE MIRANDA RIGHTS? CAN WE THEN SAY THAT THEIR RIGHTS CAN BE WIAVED? WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IT WAS NOT THIER CALL AS COPS TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS. THAT IS FOR A JURY AND JUDGE TO DECIDE.
 
Miranda

The Miranda ruling does not only apply to suspects, it also applies to anyone being questioned either as a suspect or a material witness.

Also the commission of a crime does not negate your rights. At least not under Federal Law. And since 1865 that is the truly important factor which some states seem to be unable to comprehend.
 
Refusal to give a blow automatically implicates you to being over the legal limit. They them have a right to bring you in to the deparment for a second test. Some states give a 180 day suspension for each refusal (ie, Alabama)...

If they never offered you a second chance, then you should probably be able to get it dropped... I'm not sure on the Miranda rights issue. Since you signed the card, then obviously they believed you to understand your rights. I would suggest going to thr police dept. where you were booked and everything to get a copy of the case file. If there is no copy of the Miranda card then they can't hold the case against you. At least it worked for me, but I was never actually arrested and charged. They just put an out-standing warrant for me. I love Il. :rolleyes:

BTW no matter how intoxicated you are, you're still aware of what's going on. You just might not care, or remember... Neither of which help you in court...:)
 
A Can of Worms

First I want to say, that I believe that if you are going to drink, then you should be responsible enough not to drive while doing so.

When you operate an automobile while drinking or under the influence of any mind altering substance, you not only put your own life at risk but the lives of others as well.

That said:

No matter how I feel about the above stated situation, I also feel that the constitution is ultimately important.

""""Refusal to give a blow automatically implicates you to being over the legal limit. They them have a right to bring you in to the deparment for a second test. Some states give a 180 day suspension for each refusal (ie, Alabama)...""""""


Despite the application of states and their stand on this issue. I believe that it is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Just my opinion.
Windwalker
 
Rights

What most people do not know is that for most rights to have effect they must be invoked. For example rather than saying I refuse to take a blow test, what if a person said, at this time I invoke my rights persuant to the 5th amendment of the US Constitution ?

Where would this leave the self incrimination requirement.

It is my belief that the Constitution is the only foundation for justice in America. I also believe that those rights are and have been in danger for a very long time.

I also believe that the only way to prevent the complete errosion of constitutional rights is through individual education and application.

Windwalker
 
RE:rights

I agree with you on the intoxicated driving, but that isn't the issue.


It is my understanding that unless you vocally, or actively communicate the invocation of any of your civil rights; by admission you choose to ignore these basic rights. Which should not be the case. If we have to follow certain strict guildlines to maintain our freedom why shouldn't the 'HUMANS' that choose to wear a uniform? Thats something for a different discussion though.

I believe the officers actively train in agressive interrogation techniques and body language to throw most people off-guard so that they forget these basic civil rights. I feel this to be true through my own experiences, and think that these methods should be out-lawed. Some people will give easily, and simply disregard their innate rights simply by these tactics.

I would say it's like walking towards a growling guard dog and staring it down. Same concept. We are animals after all.
 
This is going to head a bit off topic to a degree but it is still related ...

"""I believe the officers actively train in agressive interrogation techniques and body language to throw most people off-guard so that they forget these basic civil rights. """

While this practice does seem to be wide spread, I hope and pray that it is not the standard, nor do I believe that it is. There are man yofficers out there who actually are there to do the job as it is supposed to be done. Unfortunately, they are caught in the middle...

Rights should not have to be "invoked" and it does not say that they should,shall,mucs or would in the constitution. The common sense application is that since the are guaranteed rights, then they indeed apply until a person actually suspends their rights.

However, since very few people even actually know what their rights are nor how to use them, I believe that is our responsibility to be educated in these matters rather than depend on someone else to defend those rights.

If an officer stops me I haev the right to ask several questions. First I have the right to ask, "What is your probable cause for stopping me officer?" Next I have a right to see not only the officers badge, but teh law enforcement certificate which he carries in his wallet. Properd identification by hteofficer is requires. A Badge, gun and uniform do not constitute identification since any person can purchase those items and such is actually the case in many instances in this country today.

One does not have to ask these things in an argumentative manner... Simply matter of fact and with respect that every human deserves will suffice. Remember those officers that are trying to do the right job look just like all the others. Their lives are in jeapordy every day too.

Now an officer at the point of completion and during this exchange does have am inferred right to do a visual search. Inferred by state laws and confirmed by several high courts though not expressed in the constitution. I think the 4th amendment is explicit in its requirements for the issuance of probable cause. Nor does it provide for any degree of variation from those requirements.

Still if we do not know what our rights are and how to apply them, then we can be told anything and indeed most will simply respond to that as would be expected.

When it comes to my rights, I trust only me. Learning ones rights and how to apply them is as simple as reading the constitution for starters. Then looking up references to each amendment.

Hope this helps someone.

Jim
 
I agree that we should know about what our rights are, but aren't these "civil" servants we know as police supposed to uphold the current laws with integrity? This does include the basic laws of the land we call civil rights? I understand we should bear the responsibilty to uphold the laws, but should an officer of the "law" be able to violate civil right simply to make an arrest. If I violate your rights I go to jail. We should hold similar standards against them also. I believe we should instate harsher punishments against them. Any blue walls incountered should also be punished as contemt, and obstruction.


Sorry just my opinion.;)
 
While I do hear your arguments you do have to keep something in mind -- Miranda just stands for the fact that if you didn't know that what you confess to could be used against you in court, then what you confess to might be tossed out, not the underlying acts before arrest. So if you committed a crime and were caught, and then made a confession, only the confession part would be tossed without Miranda. The fact that, e.g. you were caught holding your neighbor's television set can be used against you in court and you can be charged.

Many think that Miranda should be tossed since it is of limited value and people should be held accountable for what they say. It's a compelling argument and perhaps an interesting one to explore here.
 
I think it is very important to all of us to understand that civil rights are not designed as a tool to help people get a way with committing crimnes. They are designed for several reasons. One to prevent the innocent from being unjustly convicted of crimes, and to prevent the accused of being forced compelled to inplicate themselves. They are also designed to help make sure that the punishment is not more severe than that which is called for as well as to make sure that punishment is only for crimes committed. Proof is a requirement for a reason. Civil Rights are indeed not designed to prevent persons who have broken the law from being punished.

The first responsibility of rights is rightly placed in the hands of the people. It is our responsibility to know what our rights are.

To say hope that every person in lawenforcement is perfect is a dream state. Humans are all falable. Even those in law enforcement. While I still believe that most are honest and do an honest job, I as well as others am aware that many are not. It is our responisbility to know how to deal with those issues. After all, "We The People" are the true power in America, IF we apply it... Otherwise we can expect more of the same.

Jim

Originally posted by zer0s0n5
I agree that we should know about what our rights are, but aren't these "civil" servants we know as police supposed to uphold the current laws with integrity? This does include the basic laws of the land we call civil rights? I understand we should bear the responsibilty to uphold the laws, but should an officer of the "law" be able to violate civil right simply to make an arrest. If I violate your rights I go to jail. We should hold similar standards against them also. I believe we should instate harsher punishments against them. Any blue walls incountered should also be punished as contemt, and obstruction.


Sorry just my opinion.;)
 
If you were caught in the act, whether or not Miranda rights were read to you won't really matter to you. They have enough evidence as it is. I spoke to a defense attorney who told me that if you were not read your rights, you can't really argue because it's your word against the officer's. If you were caught in the act, who's going to believe you?
 
Dui

DUI law in Georgia states that you DO NOT read a person charged with dui Miranda rights. They do have to be read the implied consent as soon as practical after the arrest is made. The implied consent is the right to give consent of a test of the blood, breath, or urine. Which test is to be used is determined by the arresting officer. A person will only be read the implied consent once and failure to give consent to a test will suspend the license of that driver for one year. The officer does not have to give the person a second chance to say yes either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top