Actually “your offense” should read “your alleged offense”. 
Their case was dismissed and didn’t go to trial after they examined the blood test.
When you are in custody AND being questioned about the alleged offense. Both elements have to be active. The roadside questions before being arrested do no require Miranda. Nor do questions that are not specific to the offense (what is your name, etc).
Asking what kind of drugs you are on is a welfare check question. If you replied you took a bunch of morphine and it appears you are also intoxicated on alcohol presents a medical emergency and asking it does not require Miranda.
The scenes you see on Law & Order where they haven’t even got the cuffs on but are reciting Miranda is pure bullshit done for dramatic license.
This is not legal advice, I am not an attorney.
If one is being arrested for alleged drug use, then I’d think asking about it would indeed require Miranda regardless of whether it would be used also as a welfare check question.
Drug use isn’t a crime.
Though I did learn here that in the UK they do have to read them their version of their right directly after arrest. Not in the US.
I can ask you if you killed the Lindbergh Baby without Miranda if I didn’t care about it getting into a trial. When we do our safety questionnaire which includes questions on suicidal thoughts, physical condition, medication and drug use there is no expectation that any answers will be admissible. And they are mostly irrelevant.
So the Miranda rights aren’t required for the questioning before arrest, and they apparently aren’t applicable to questioning after arrest, which means people have no Miranda rights. :dubious:
Miranda is required when reasonable suspicion that the subject has committed a crime. Questions asked by an officer on a roadside stop do not require Miranda until reasonable suspicion exists.
An Officer is not required to give Miranda at all. If there is enough evidence of the crime, the Officer may feel no need to question. If, however, a question is asked and Miranda was not previously given AFTER reasonable suspicion exists, then any answer to that question is inadmissable in court.
Custodial questionnaires in the jail are different. These questions are asked for FBI statistical reporting requirements and to take reasonable steps to ensure the subject’s health. It is a given that the answers contained in the questionnaire are not going to be used against the subject. The jail is responsible for your care which is why they often have a med tech ask questions.
As long as you ignore everything I said, sure.
Exactly right.
Wow. I haven’t worked PD in 20 years…Miranda hasn’t changed much!!
So if the questioning lasts for 15-30 minutes, the reasonable suspicion conveniently arises after the very last question is asked thus rendering no need to cite Miranda.
SCOTUS has been very careful to not put a bright line as to a time period in which an investigative detention becomes custodial. Some case law states that a longer time period was reasonable and others say a shorter time period was reasonable. It’s not only the time that determines it.
But I’m referring to the convenience of the reasonable suspicion arising after the very last pre-arrest question is asked.
You can speak with an officer for hours without saying anything that causes reasonable suspicion. Again, reasonable suspicion is an opinion until ruled on by the courts. The cop may not think that he has RS and the court may find later that he did.
You can saying something triggering RS in 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 years…the trigger is an incriminating utterance.
Sure, it’s right after the beating.
OK, that has changed. We beat the suspects after Miranda. 
It is really up to the suspect when he wants to trigger RS. In all reality, the standard questions are asked and at some point, you said something incriminating. The Officer may have planned asking many more questions, but has to stop and give Miranda the second RS exists.
15-30 minutes of routine questioning then I perked the officers ears. Yeah, right. How convenient. It apparently works out convenient that way for 95% of arrests according to pkbites.
Since the case was dismissed on blood test evidence which is the only thing they possibly could go on, I reject your assertion that I “said something incriminating”. And it was readily apparent that the officers had “reasonable suspicion” before the questioning was over because they were repeatedly asserting that I was on drugs and saying “bullshit” to my answers.
You are talking about your one personal case which we would have to assume that your point of view was 100% correct. Even if it happened exactly like that it seems as if using that to refute the GQ answer to the question goes far beyond what we are talking about here.
Pot still illegal here if that sways your opinion.