Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear. Once they have said 'those magic wrds"- STFU!!! After that, you should only ask for your lawyer, and give basic ID info. Nothing else, don’t try and 'talk yourself out". Even if you are innocent- it is suprising how many dudes manage to prove their innocence in crime A by basicly admiting crime B…but if you do so- you’re still fucked. And, you can’t possibly know all that laws and what you may be guilty of. STFU and let your attorney do your talking.
This point needs to be reiterated. If they arrest you, don’t think you’re going to butter them up and make them go easy on you by chatting away. Shut up, and let your lawyer do the talking.
And if you’ve got a spare 10 bucks, i recommend this book. I don’t anticipate ever having to worry about being arrested, but this little book is an excellent guide for how to handle any contact you have with law enforcement officers.
There’s no very good reason to include “will”; as is obvious, it’s inaccurate. However, the Miranda warnings are meant to be prophylactic. They are not meant to be, and are not, a description of the rules of criminal procedure. They are a bright neon warning that a suspect doesn’t have to say anything if he doesn’t want to, no matter what the police do to coax, cajole, or threaten him. Therefore, the reason for the inclusion of “will” is to afford greater protection to the suspects by making sure they know the worst-case scenario. Once they call their lawyer, she can explain what the pros and cons to speech might be, but the moment of arrest is not the time to try and give a suspect an education.
An interview given on the subject by former California DA Harold Berliner, the co-author (with then Deputy DA Doris Maier) of the familiar Miranda warning.
