Or in my case, when I saw a burglar climb out a window I should have kept my mouth shut instead of speaking up while everything was fresh in my memory. Phew! I’m glad I didn’t go to jail for witnessing a crime!
<adding to your incomplete sentence the words> “of someone about his own conduct.”
You misunderstand the decision it would seem. There’s nothing which requires me, say your local friendly cop, to notify you of your Miranda rights if I don’t plan on asking you about anything you might have done illegal. That I’ve already arrested you is of no moment.
Your argument flies in the face of the constitution anyway, such that if I arrest you and ask you questions about someone who isn’t you and you give me answers, then that is perfectly admissible. If I arrest you, don’t Mirandize you and then ask you questions that are likely to incriminate yourself, then we have a problem. But I’m certainly free to arrest you, not Mirandize you and then you ask you questions about other people’s conducts without having run afoul of the constitution. You’re protected from being required to incriminate yourself; not other people.
Speaking of the Miranda warning, I’ve always been confused about the part that goes “anything you say can and will be used against you.” It’s almost made me wish that I found myself in a situation where I was being read my rights, so when the officer was done, I could say something like, “I like turnips.” Let’s just see them try to use that against me.
“Anything [incriminating] you say . . .” There, fixed.
Of course, what if you’re being arrested for turnip molestation of some kind?
No, not really. I’m sure that at least once during American history, a Mirandized suspect has said something incriminating which didn’t make its way into court. I just don’t see what “and will” adds to the warning.
Bitch was asking for it.
Yet another phrase not to use with the turnip police!
Well, can and will have disparate meanings. Can means might be used against you. Will means likely will be. Sure, one’s a fortiori, but when has that stopped using such language in law?
:rolleyes:
Sorry you require my statement to be qualified. I think reporting a crime is normal and fine.
Did you watch the video?
Well, that seems a normal reaction when you give a bald, unqualified statement:
So, contrary to your first statement, you agree that there are cases where it is appropriate to talk to the cops without a lawyer present.
Fine. Bad language choice on my part.
Happy?
Video is still worth watching though and serves as a cautionary lesson if you are ever being questioned by the police.
Watching it now. And since both the OP and another poster brought up the concept of being a witness to a crime, then yeah, you should have qualified it with “If you think you may be a suspect…”
Catching criminals is a good thing. If a policeman knocked on my door, and told me that my neighbor had been robbed and beaten in his house, did I see anything out of the ordinary, I’d go ahead and tell him there was a blue chevy I’ve never seen before parked in front of his house that morning. I think the infinitesmal risk of that somehow coming back to haunt me is worth the value the info may have for the police.
No. It’s like two half-hour episodes! (Not to mention the guy is from the detestable Regent Bible “College”) Can you give us an executive summary?
Here is a previous thread we did on a related topic: Being Questioned by the Police and Unrelated Crimes
The second video the guy brings on a police officer practiced in interrogations and he confirms the guy in the first video.
The upshot is the police are good at what they do, they are free to play all sorts of tricks and even if you say things that you are sure help you they can often be used against you later.
In short, exercise your rights and lawyer up and till then shut yer trap.
I’m afraid you’re just fucking wrong. Would you like the board’s other lawyers to weigh in on the question?
It’s a fair summary of the video and the videos are very good for what they are (i have some outside knowledge in this area). The key advice is not to never talk to the police without a lawyer but rather to never talk to the police without a lawyer IF YOU ARE OR COULD BE A SUSPECT. An interrogation qua interrogation is guilt presumptive; they want a confession. this is distinct from questioning, in which they want information. The trick is knowing when to say “wait, they think i did it! Lawyer!”. Never try to convince a cop you didn’t do it from inside an interrogation room.
I don’t think it actually is wrong.
I break into your house to steal your TV. While making my escape, I witness you strangling your mother-in-law. ashman arrests me for burglary when he catches me running down the street with your TV. While I’m sitting handcuffed in his patrol car, he asks; “Hey, did you see Kimmy_Gibbler murder anyone?” and I answer: “Why, yes! Yes, I did see Kimmy kill!”
ashman has not yet Mirandized me, but my statements can still be used against you at your trial. While I’m sitting there, arrested and in his custody, he can ask me all about what I saw you do.
He just has to Mirandize me before he asks me questions about me and my shenanigans.
I’ll weigh in.
As a lawyer: ashman165, there is not suspect/not a suspect distinction in the Miranda cases. As far as the incriminates you/incriminates someone else distinction, *Miranda *only protects a person charged with a crime. So to some extent, you are correct, but I think you are overgeneralizing. Suppose, for example, that the police question you about x’s conduct, and during the interview you disclose information that incriminates you or inadvertently confess to a different crime. If x is charged with a crime, x can’t complain about your un-Mirandized statements. But if you were later charged, the admission of that evidence could violate Miranda if:
- You were in custody;
- You were interrogated;
- You weren’t given the Miranda warnings.
Each of the italicized terms has been defined specifically by the courts.
As a moderator:
[modding]
Kimmy, I’d appreciate it if you’d be a tiny bit less snarky in this thread.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
[/modding]
So in my example, if Arresting Officer Ashman did NOT Mirandize me and asked “Did you see Kimmy kill?” and my answer was “Yes, after I broke in through the living room window, I saw Kimmy strangling some lady in the kitchen.” My un-Mirandized confession about breaking in through the living room window would be inadmissible at my own trial, but witnessing the murder could be entered into evidence at Kimmy’s trial.
This is correct. I would not call it a Miranda requirement, but a consequence of our rules concerning standing and the fact the remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is usually limited to suppression. The officer can do this not because the law distinguishes between questions regarding the interrogated’s conduct and others’ conduct, but rather because I have no standing to challenge it and you have no remedy available.
I will actually refine that last sentence a bit. After Missouri v. Seibert (where the court ended the practice of interrogating un-Mirandized suspects, getting a confession, Mirandizing them, and then getting the confession again), I would say you might have a good shot of getting your pre- and post-warning statements suppressed by contending that the cops were trying to engage in an impermissible Seibert two-step.
Bingo.