Send him my way. I have been trying to find another way to lose some inches off my ass. 
FWIIW, I think the cop owes you an apology and probably realizes it by now. I have a feeling that he was embarrassed and just wanted to get the hell out of there. I think you are to be commended in that you understand that the cop is only human and was just doing what he felt was correct.
The decision is a refinement of Miranda. But even in Miranda- the point was - once you are “under police custody” (note- not “arrest”) your utterances can be considered 'coerced". Thus- in order for them to be entirely voluntary- the suspect must be aware of his rights. If I remember the (new)case- it was with a guy who had been ‘detained but not arrested’ according to the Police- so they did not read him his rights. The suspect more or less confessed- but SCOTUS threw it out- as the said “detained is still ‘under police custody’”. Maybe one of our lawyers can find the actual case- they have before, a couple of months ago. Thus- if the suspect answeres an incriminating query- after he is “detained”- but before his miranda rights are read- sorry. Thus, in effect, as soon as one is detained- your miranda rights come into play- and you are in 'custody"- ie “arrest”.
Glitch- in Canada you have a different constitution- no “miranda” per se. In the USA the police do not have to tell what you are being arrested for- initially. Only when you are “booked”.
I always have Danno do that part.
I just lost a nice reply to a computer crash so I apologize for this being short and sweet.
In Canada the legals rights are pretty much exactly the same as in the USA. Right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, right to have a gov’t appointed attorney present if you cannot afford one.
In the USA a police officer is supposed to tell you the charge when they arrest you.
From the New York State Bar Association:
From the New York State Bar Association:
The key words here being the bolded above. In other words, without actually being charged you are not under arrest. This does not mean that your Miranda rights are not in effect, which clearly the SCOTUS decision states that your Miranda rights are in effect whenever you are restrained.
So, I maintain my original statement. You are under arrest when the officer tells you are under arrest and for what charge. It is the only way that all of the constitutional requirements can be met.
By the way, searched for the last hour and a half through findlaw.com and couldn’t find any reference to this ruling.
Searched under:
Miranda Rights (lots of hits)
Placed under restraints
Rights in police custody
Police custody
Wow! Interesting. Kinda wierd how one word is so damn powerful. I shoulda been a lawyer.
Tripler
Pretty slick!
Didn’t anyone think it strange that the cop just chose whoever happened to be living at the address, before even getting a name? Shit, there coulda’ been 10 people living there and any one of them could have been the perp!
My $0.02.
That’s part of the reason I’m pissed. . .
He didn’t make any mention for ID or my name. Just figured ‘this is the address, and he fits the description’. So, he nabbed me.
Come to think of it, I don’t think cops actually carry the actual warrant. I guess I just assumed it was. Probably just a printout of the description and address.
Life goes on . . .
Tripler
'Cause I fought the law and the. . . law won. . .
Which begs the question: What was the “description” you fit?
Suspect will be:
sex: male;
age: 13-53;
height: 4’9" - 6’3.5";
hair color: ass-length black, sholder length medium brownish-blonde…perhaps shaved bald
build: frail to muscular
distiguishing characteristics: birthmark on inner right butt-cheek in the shape of a VW mini-bus; well spoken with a lisp but sometimes mute or James Earl Jones sounding; will be walking out of completely incorrect address at time of your arrival.
Nope, sorry- you forget they can arrest you and hold you for a certain time, without charging you at all - “for questioning”. When you are down in a cell at the Police station, I think we can all agree you are “under arrest”. And SCOTUS did not want to bother with any such legalisms as argueing whether or not an “arrest” is made- your rights kick in as soon as you are under a police officers restraint or authority. You could certainlty sue for “false arrest” in the present case- altho one might argue it should actually be “unlawful restraint or detention”. However, in the present case there would be very little in the way of damages.
In any case- it really does not matter what the NY Bar assoc says- it is what SCOTUS says that matters.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
Alright people, I think we’re taking this waaaayyy too in depth. Nobody’s suing anyone, and it was a big mistake. Sheesh . . .
Tripler
Everone, let’s take a deep breath and calm down.
Of course, to date you haven’t provided the actual ruling, so you haven’t provided what SCOTUS said, only your interpretation of what they said.
That being said lets apply some logic here.
Your legal rights are ALWAYS in effect. You always have the right to remain silent. The original Miranda ruling simply states that unless a police officer informs you of those rights as he places you under arrest anything you say cannot be used against you.
Arrest is a well-defined legal term that has constitutional requirements. One of which being the right to know what charge you are under arrest for.
With this in mind, does it make more sense for SCOTUS to make a ruling which redefines arrest, and makes in contradictory with regards to its legal requirements? Or extend the exclusionary rule of Miranda to acts of physically restricted detainment? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
By the way, when a police officer brings you downtown for questioning you are not under arrest if it is voluntary. A police officer cannot force you to come in for questioning, now who has been watching too much TV. This isn’t to say that police don’t do this, but the fact is that they count on people not enforcing their right to not go with them if they are not under arrest.
Again, two very well defined terms here. Detainment is that in which the police officer stops you for questioning. You have the right to leave that at any time. Arrest in which the police officer charges you with the commission of a crime.
I am willing to believe that SCOTUS ruled that the Miranda rights are in effect during a physically restraining detainment. Without seeing the ruling I am not willing to believe they redefined arrest, and did so in a manner which makes it legally contradictory.
Arrest does not need to accompanied by a formal charge. Just recently, a co-worker of mine was arrested, held in Van Nuys jail for more than 36 hours, but never charged with anything.
Spooje, a great post. I stand corrected. Thank you.
Update . . .
I got a phone call yesterday from the Sherrif’s Dept, and spoke to someone I know from over there. He came up to my office and we went out to lunch (sponsored by them)
Apparently Deputy Dippity Doo has been reprimanded. This was not the first “accident” he’s had on duty - he’s done a few other dopey things too (a cruiser got into a fenderbender, twice). While my incident paled in comparison to other dumber things he’s done, it was the final straw that warranted a closer look.
My friend did say that he’s getting a pretty good razzing in the office for lots of stuff he did, and for my little infraction, they bought him a compass and a street map (good call guys!) so he knows which way is north.
My bud did want to convey the Sherrif’s apologies, and told me to call the boss himself. I figure the whole thing is pretty much over, and laughable, and my bud agreed. Not much else to say, 'cept I think I got the closure I need.
Tripler
The larcenist from Bismarck