A Poll on Perceptions of Miranda Rights

[askeptic]

@Richard

…evidence gained as a result of unmirandized statements can be used, so long as the statements are not compelled in violation of the 14th amendment. It’s an interesting result. I think it makes a certain amount of sense from a textualist perspective, but also seems to really erode the deterrence value of Miranda.

@me

I agree that physical evidence discovered as a result of a voluntary unMirandized statement may be introduced at trial.

In light of the above quotes I can’t remember what we were arguing about…

[Enginerd]

I’ll give it a shot…

@Richard Parker

1. When, if ever, must the police warn you of your Miranda rights?

Before any custodial interrogation.

2. What is the legal consequence of their failure to do so?

Any statements you make during that interrogation cannot be used against you in court.

3. If you invoke your right to remain silent, must the police stop questioning you?

I don’t think so… I do think that they have to stop questioning you if you ask for a lawyer, though.

[Richard_Parker]

@askeptic

In light of the above quotes I can’t remember what we were arguing about…

Probably just me communicating badly.

[pkbites]

I’m willing to guess that a HUGE majority of Americans think an officer has to Mirandize immediately upon arrest. This, of course, comes from the zillions of TV shows & movies where the cops are still fighting to get the handcuffs on the suspect all the while reading him his rights.:rolleyes:

Over the last 25+ years I’d say I read far less than 10% of the people I’d arrested their rights. I didn’t have to because I had no need to interview them.
There’s been quite a few that, at some point, would say with a smug face “ha ha! I’m going to get out of this because you didn’t read me my rights!”
I would freaking love to see the look on their face when their attorney told them I didn’t have to!!

[Billdo]

A Lawyer with negligible criminal experience beyond a first year law school class, multiple Law and Order episodes and innumerable detective novels (I’ve not read the thread beyond the OP):

[spoiler]1) The police are only required to give the Miranda warnings before an interrogation when the witness is in custody. You don’t have to give them immediately after arrest, even though that’s what everyone does on TV.

2. If they fail to give a proper warning when required, the interrogation may not be used in evidence against the witness, nor may any “fruit of the poisonous tree” evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation be used.

3. You invoke your right to remain silent by actually remaining silent (unlike the Bugs Bunny cartoon when he’s kidnapped and he goes on about shutting up about shutting up). They can keep questioning you and you have to keep remaining silent.
   This is unlike the right to a lawyer, which when properly invoked requires the police to stop questioning.[/spoiler]