Do Cops Have to Read You Your Rights?

Tucson Criminal Defense Attorneys Explain the Miranda Warning Rule

Everyone has heard the "Miranda warning" on a police TV Show or movie.  When a suspect is being placed under arrest, a police officer will say something like:

"You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you free of charge."

In Miranda v. Arizona (, the US Supreme Court dealt with the issue of custodial interrogations.  The resulting rule was that statements a person makes during custodial interrogation can only be admitted against a defendant in court if police first informed the defendant of the right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer.  The Court crafted an "exclusionary rule" where statements obtained in violation of a defendant's Miranda rights cannot be used against them.

The most important thing that the public can take from this opinion is to know not to make any statements to law enforcement.  The "Miranda warning" does trigger some people to stop talking, but many disregard the important rights they are being told.  If you or a loved one is ever subject to police interrogation, do not make any statements without consulting with your attorney first.  Believe it or not, police are allowed to lie, and use other threatening and deceitful tactics to elicit statements.  Additionally, the rules of evidence are such that if a suspect makes a perfect, exculpatory statement, the defendant cannot later admit that statement in court (only the prosecution can do so).  Therefore, it is virtually never in a person's best interest to speak with police if they are suspected of a crime or have been arrested.  Do not answer questions, and demand to have your attorney present immediately.

WHAT IS CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION?
Not all statements made to police qualify as being during custodial interrogation.  Spontaneous statements made by a person in custody are not made in response to questioning.  The test for whether questioning is "interrogation" is whether it is likely to elicit an incriminating response.  Custody is most easily established after a formal arrest

THE POLICE DID NOT READ ME MY RIGHTS WHEN I WAS ARRESTED
Much of the time, an arresting officer's failure to read an arrestee their rights will not have much of an impact on a case.  As discussed above, many statements that a suspect makes are not statements made during custodial interrogation.  Further, many cases do not rely on a defendant's statements.  If police fail to read someone their Miranda rights, the remedy is exclusions of any statements made during any subsequent custodial interrogation.  If no incriminating statements are made, then there is nothing to exclude.  If incriminating statements are made spontaneously, or prior to custodial interrogation, those statements will not be excluded.  Miranda violations

EXAMPLES OF MIRANDA VIOLATION SITUATIONS
1.  Daniel is arrested on an old warrant.  The arresting officers do not read him his rights, but place him in the back of the police car.  Upon booking him into the jail, police find a small bag of cocaine in his pocket.  One of the officers asks him "what's this?" to which Daniel replies "coke."  Now, the officers' failure to read Daniel his rights will mean only that Daniel's statement ("coke") will be excluded.  The actual drug, and the officers' observation that it was in Daniel's pocket are still evidence which can be used against him.  The failure to read Miranda rights will not affect the warrant in any way.

2.  Officers respond to a store that had just been robbed, and talk to the clerk.  After talking to the clerk for a few minutes, the officers do not believe the story.  The clerk quickly confesses to helping plan the robbery.  Once placed under arrest (but before being read his rights), the cops ask him why he did it, and the clerk further says "I really needed the money.  This guy said he was going to pay me $200 to let him rob the store while I was working."  The clerk's initial confession will likely not be thrown out, because it was made prior to custodial interrogation.  The additional details made after arrest could only be admitted if the officers had read the clerk his rights before the statements were made.

3.  During a traffic stop, a police officer smells the odor of marijuana in the driver's car.  She orders the driver out of the vehicle, and handcuffs him and puts him in the back of her police car.  According to her report, she read the driver his Miranda rights as she was putting the cuffs on.  She then searches the car, finds marijuana, a pipe, and a firearm.  While driving the driver to the police station, the officer asks him about the gun, which the driver says he stole from a house he had broken into.  The police are not able to connect the gun to any burglary.  Body cam footage reveals that the officer did not read the driver his rights.  The driver's lawyer files a motion to suppress the statements.  The motion is granted as to the statements about the gun being stolen.  The gun, marijuana, and pipe, can still be used as evidence against the driver, but any charge relating to the gun being stolen must be thrown out. 

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE IS FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES IN TUCSON, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE GREAT REPRESENTATION ON YOUR SIDE.  BEING ARRESTED, OR CHARGED WITH A CRIME, IS SCARY, AND IT CAN NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOUR LIFE IN MANY WAYS.  BUT AN ARREST DOES NOT HAVE TO LEAD TO A CONVICTION.  OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE BEATEN MANY BIG CASES, INCLUDING LIFE SENTENCES AND OTHER MAJOR FELONIES.  CONTACT US NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION TO DISCUSS YOUR CASE AND GET STARTED ON YOUR DEFENSE.  520-585-5757

TUCSON CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY

---

USEFUL LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Miranda Case Summary
Miranda v Arizona Full Opinion

Pima County Superior Court
US District Court - Arizona (Tucson)