Right to travel

C

cocreator69

New Member
I was pulled over after I was so called speeding, but regardless, should I have invoked the Miranda law in this case, since I was in custodial interrogation?
 
Huh? Were you pulled over and ticketed or arrested and detained? Miranda only comes into play if you are being interrogated while in custody. There are exceptions as well. Questions asked in the course of a normal speeding ticket transaction do not count.
 
cocreator69 said:
I was pulled over after I was so called speeding, but regardless, should I have invoked the Miranda law in this case, since I was in custodial interrogation?
Click to expand...

Miranda has nothing to do with traffic tickets and it was not a custodial interrogation.

However, you had the option of declining to answer any of the officer's questions.

Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?
You: No comment.
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
You: No comment.
Officer: Are you trying to be a smart ass?
You: No comment.
Officer: Here's your citation. Have a nice day.
 
adjusterjack said:
Miranda has nothing to do with traffic tickets and it was not a custodial interrogation.

However, you had the option of declining to answer any of the officer's questions.

Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?
You: No comment.
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
You: No comment.
Officer: Are you trying to be a smart ass?
You: No comment.
Officer: Here's your citation. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are incorrect. When you are pulled over you are in a "custodial arrest". I have numerous pieces of case law that explain this very clearly. If you would like I can pull them out of my archives.

While in a "custodial arrest" you are guaranteed all of the same rights as if you had been under arrest any other way. One of those rights, is the right to remain silent and not incriminate your self in any way shape or form.

So answer me this, when the officer has you in a "custodial arrest" and he requests to see your license, registration, and proof of insurance... aren't those all things that could further incriminate you if for example you forgot that your registration was due or your license had just expired on your birthday and you didn't remember to go get it renewed.

All of these lawmakers have made laws that attempt to turn you not showing the cop your drivers license into a crime. However no law can force you to give up any of your rights. That is the definition of unconstitutional.

A little off topic but there you go. I am assuming you listen to Eddie Craig. He is great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nashley428 said:
Actually, you are incorrect. When you are pulled over you are in a "custodial arrest".
Click to expand...

This post is three years old.

For the sake of rebuttal I'll just comment that nowhere in the United States is a traffic stop considered a custodial arrest.
The actions taken by police during the stop could bring Miranda into play, but there is no need to give the advisement unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions are custody and interrogation.

So answer me this, when the officer has you in a "custodial arrest" and he requests to see your license, registration, and proof of insurance... aren't those all things that could further incriminate you if for example you forgot that your registration was due or your license had just expired on your birthday and you didn't remember to go get it renewed.
Click to expand...

Your scenario is faulty because you wrongly believe it is a custodial arrest from the moment of the traffic stop. A driver is required by law to produce the items you indicated upon demand of law enforcement. Failing to provide them will only result in more citations, and possible tow of the vehicle. A driver has no obligation to engage in conversation with the police or any answer other questions... only to provide certain documents on demand.

All of these lawmakers have made laws that attempt to turn you not showing the cop your drivers license into a crime.
Click to expand...

It is.

However no law can force you to give up any of your rights. That is the definition of unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Correct... And they don't. Producing your license does not incriminate you in any way. The offense is committed by failing to produce it.
 
What hogwash. A traffic stop is a temporary detention. Go ahead and remain silent and don't produce any documents and then you WILL end up in a custodial arrest situation.
 
Ok I don't care how old a thread is.
For the record I truly hope no one who commented is a attorney because if you are, you need to quit.

It is simply amazing how easy it is to show everyone how much hot air you are blowing with every word.

Please don't take my word for it, look at the case law yourself and let me know if a custodial arrest is in line with how I read the definition or not.

I will help you out being that it seems you are unwilling to research something before you attack someone on here. Here are a few cases of many many many more.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318

People v. McKay (2002)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
mightymoose said:
This post is three years old.

For the sake of rebuttal I'll just comment that nowhere in the United States is a traffic stop considered a custodial arrest.
The actions taken by police during the stop could bring Miranda into play, but there is no need to give the advisement unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions are custody and interrogation.



Your scenario is faulty because you wrongly believe it is a custodial arrest from the moment of the traffic stop. A driver is required by law to produce the items you indicated upon demand of law enforcement. Failing to provide them will only result in more citations, and possible tow of the vehicle. A driver has no obligation to engage in conversation with the police or any answer other questions... only to provide certain documents on demand.



It is.



Correct... And they don't. Producing your license does not incriminate you in any way. The offense is committed by failing to produce it.
Click to expand...

You are saying it is a crime. However if that supposed crime is keeping you from being able to stand on one of your rights then that law is null and void.

No law can force you into giving up any of your rights. Because then they are no longer rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nashley428 said:
You are saying it is a crime. However if that supposed crime is keeping you from being able to stand on one of your rights then that law is null and void.

No law can force you into giving up any of your rights. Because then they are no longer rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Every licensed driver knows that as a condition of being a licensed driver they must produce certain documents on demand of law enforcement. This is not a violation of any right.
If you don't agree then you can find another way to travel.
 
Neither of the two cases you cited support your claim... They support mine.
A custodial arrest does not occur automatically at the time of a traffic stop. It depends on the nature of the violation, the officers discretion, and actions that take place after the stop.
Each of those examples resulted in a further action by the officer that resulted in an arrest, but was not an arrest until those certain actions were taken.
In short, you simply misunderstand the difference between being temporarily detained and being arrested. They are well defined terms and are distinctly different.
 
Contrary to what cop shows indicate, Miranda is not required at the time of the arrest. The only "penalty" for not reading someone their Miranda rights is that information can not be used against them in a court of law.
 
Actually I do not agree with the sovereign citizens movement. You are right, it is a complete waist of time. No single law or "silver bullet" will ever be the "secret weapon" to magically making the courts do as you wish and the entire basis of the sovereign citizen bs is complete nonsense. 98% of the case law that they use to try to "educate" others is fabricated or completely made up from nothing.

You can interpret the case law I posted however you like, but I promise you if you actually take the time to look further into it you will see time and time again that the courts have ruled that what I am saying is correct.

Anyways have a good rest of your presidents weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Highwayman said:
Sure. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even write.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. I hope that made you feel like you got the last word in and you won the argument. Like I already said, PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. GO AND LOOKUP CASE LAW YOURSELF PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE. See for yourself what the courts rule.
Then maybe you will have something more intelligent to say other then a grammatical mistake I made.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I'm not even sure what your position is here. Are you trying to claim that officers must read your your Miranda rights anytime they pull you over for a routine traffic stop? If so, you are very much mistaken. Officers find evidence of other crimes all the time during routine stops, often without the person ever having to utter a word. Not wearing a seatbelt, having an open beer, being under the influence, not being licensed, drugs in the car, and many more are often not apparent until the officer pulls the car over for speeding or running a stop sign or whatever. No different than if they break up a bar fight and discover drugs on someone or they have an open warrant.
 
Nashley428 is asserting that a traffic stop is always a custodial arrest. It simply isn't true.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what legal "custody" is and when it occurs, and a misunderstanding of what self-incriminating is on top of that.

The cases that were cited above do nothing to support the argument and are barely even on topic.
 

Ask a Question

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top