Yeah, doesn’t Miranda only apply if you are under arrest? But what happens if you offer information freely only to discover that as a result of that information, you are placed under arrest? What is the legal significance of the statements you made before you were read your Miranda rights?
In reference to someone’s remark about field sobriety tests, wouldn’t one who is subject to the test be in a position where one is forced to incriminate oneself with no other choice but to surrender one’s driving privileges?
Assuming you meant “prosecuted,” I’m sure your conclusion will be scant relief to James Brogan, PROSECUTED for lying to federal agents during their investigation of illegal union kickbacks. And convicted, by the way.
Stop posting inaccurate information in GQ, please.
Miranda applies in any custodial interrogation - not simply arrest, but any questioning in which your liberty is restricted.
If your liberty is restricted and you make statements in response to interrogation before your Miranda rights are read, those statements are inadmissible.
No. Courts have consistently held that field sobriety tests are not testimonial in nature, and are not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Rick, you reading deficient… person. I did not make any claim about what the law says. I said the exact words “I seem to have found”, not “I have to have found”
Besides which, you have added nothing new to this thread. Your comment has already been covered by pravnik in post 4.
Stop posting already covered information in GQ, please.
What does posting results a search you made - that does not accurately reflect the state of the law - do towards answering the factual question in this thread?
There are certain limited circumstances where you can be required to answer some questions by a police officer, like telling your identity to a police officer who has a reasonable suspicion that you may be engaged in criminal activity, but in general there is no affimative duty to cooperate with police questioning so long as you don’t take active steps to obstruct an investigation. Bricker can probably expand on this.
More or less. It held that the constitutional violation doesn’t occur until they actually try to use it against you in court. If you’re never get charged with a crime, the fact that they got an illegal confession from you is a moot point. It might have farther reaching consequences that I’m just not seeing at the moment, but best I can tell that’s pretty much it.
Heh…no, not the year 1983. Section 1983 of title 42 of the U.S. Code.
Well, it shows that I am not nearly obstinate as you. Sure, so I should have googled a little bit longer, had I wanted to answer the question. However, I had no interest in doing so, for Whack-a-Mole and pravnik already did. Had I answered the question, that would have been redundant to their posts. The true purpose of my answer was to agree with Whack-a-Mole, least he think I was holding to my opinion regardless of the facts.
Now, I’ll ask again. What does post 22 have to do with answering the factual question in this thread, since pravnik already answered that part of the question?
Well, I’ll tell you. It makes you look like you can’t tell when a question has been answered. It also shows that you don’t trust people to tell my short answers from the much longer, more detailed answers of others.
Uh huh. Well, pravnik posted the seminal case on the exculpatory no - he’s pretty sharp.
In contrast, plenty of people have been prosecuted for outright lies that extend beyond the exculpatory no - yet are still within the amibit of the question posed by the OP, and presumably within the search you SEEM to have made.
Diana Johnson, prosecuted for lying to FBI agents concerning embezzlement from the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service.
David Shafer, prosecuted for lying to Department of Labor investigators about paying his workers the prevailing wage.
David M. Dale, for lying to federal investigators concerning his billing practices and the tax liabilities created therefrom.
Dr. P.G. Raithatha, for lying to immigration officials investigating immigration violations.
Juanito Mora-Santana, for lying to immigration officials.
Sahr Jarvouhey, for lying to federal firearms officials in connection with an investigation into firearms trafficking.
Just in case anyone is reading in left with the impression that no one is prosecuted for the crime.
It’s true. I did not trust the usually sharp-eyed readers of this thread to read your statement “By searching harder, I seem to have found that that no one has been persecuted for it, and it happens all the time, but it is a crime, nonetheless,” and conclude from that statement that people are prosecuted for it all the time. Remarkable on my part, I know. But I wanted to emphasize that despite your keen Google skills, “No one has been prosecuted for it” was an absolutely wrong statement, and the disclaimer that you “seem to have found” was wholly inadaquate to remove your statement from the bounds of seemingly factual assertion into the bounds of absolute inaccuracy, where it belonged.
I read the synopsis of Chavez v. Martinez here and the upshot of it is as you said Pravnik (not that I doubted you…just affirming what you have said).
Still, it seems worrisome as a civil liberties issue that essentially the police can coerce someone to the extent of interferring with medical treatment of a person shot five times (ultimately Martinez was left a paraplegic and blind…Chavez persisted in questioning in the hospital despite being asked by medical staff to leave). I am not saying that Chavez’s questioning was the difference between Martinez being able to walk again or see but he was clearly in pain and the link I just posted said most of his answers to questioning were to ask for treatment. Frankly this seems to skate close to torture. I won’t go so far as to say it was torture but still…if I had been shot five times I’d tell anyone except doctors working on me to piss off.
Anyway…from my admittedly legal novice armchair it seems like Chavez went too far in persuing information from Martinez. Just my $0.02.
[QUOTE=BrickerIf your liberty is restricted and you make statements in response to interrogation before your Miranda rights are read, those statements are inadmissible.
[/QUOTE]
What constitutes as “your liberty restricted”?
I thought if police asked you to the station for questioning and you complied they could use your statements in court (presumably you gave the info freely). Of course, you are presumably free to leave at any time during questioning. If the police think they have got their guy and you try to leave they can then place you under arrest and read you your Miranda rights.
What circumsatnces are “restricted” liberty where what you say cannot be used against you?
[sub]Not trying to be snarky…genuinely curious.[/sub]
It occurred to me after seeing the list that Bricker provided that if lying to law enforcement is a crime why bother with taking an oath when in court? The oath seems to serve as notice to the person on the stand that lying is a crime so they had better not do it. Unless we assume the person taking the oath has a belief in god and swearing to tell the truth puts the additional fear of divine retribution for their lies into them what’s the point? Why isn’t it just held that lying to law enforcement anywhere, anytime, could see you prosecuted for it?
Is the whole oath taking thing really nothing more these days than pomp for the courts?
Your question posits an answer that will incriminate you. I don’t believe you ever have to answer a question that will incriminate you. For example, if the cop asks, “Did you fire that shot?” I think you can deny it or say nothing. I don’t see how a denial to a cop when you actually did the deed is any different from a not guilty plea to a judge under the same conditions. You have not told the truth in both cases.
However, I think misleading the police with an affirmative wrong response would be illegal. If the cop asks if Phillip Marlowe fired the shot and you say that it was Sam Spade, that’s probably a crime of some sort. Hindering a police investigation maybe?
A not guilty plea merely says that you intend to force the government to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s vastly different from a denial.
As pravnik explained above, you CAN be prosecuted for denying that you fired the shot.
Right. As long as a reasonable person in your circumstances would feel free to leave, your liberty is not restricted.
Handcuffed by the side of the road.
Brought to the police station for questioning and placed in a locked room.
Brought to the police station for questioning and placed in an unlocked room, but with an armed officer between you and the door.
Each case must be evaluated on its indivdual merits, but the rule is: if a reasonable person in your circumstances would feel free to leave, your liberty is not restricted.
Interesting. So if the police question you about going through a red light and you deny it and it is later proved in court that you did go through the light you can also be prosecuted and convicted for the denial?
I know that lying to the police is a crime in my state (Washington). I’ve arrested dozens of people for doing so over the last 18 years. The most common instance is when someone lies about their name, but it can be any lie at all.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. The right to remain silent is when YOU are the suspect. If you withhold information about another person, you can possibly be prosecuted for obstructing the investigation, or rendering criminal assistance to the suspect.
Excellent! A police officer posting to this board! It has been awhile (that I know of) that we had a police officer (which I assume you are) posting here. There have been more than a few times I wish we had one here so welcome (a bit late from me perhaps given Thalion’s post count but still a welcome addition).
I would normally never disagree with Bricker on a question of law, but this is not my understanding of the current state of Miranda rulings. Miranda is triggered by Custodial Interrogation, and the courts have repeatedly defined the Custody part as being not simply a restriction of liberty but “the functional equivalent of arrest”.
Here is a quote from a recent Washington State ruling (and Washington follows the Federal Court rulings on Fifth Amendment law, unlike Fourth Amendment rulings): "The question is not whether a reasonable person would believe that he was free to leave but rather whether he would believe that he was in " ‘police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.’ "
State v. Posenjak, ___ Wn. App. ___, 111 P.3d 1206 (Div. III, 2005)