Miranda Rights

[anaserrata]

If an officer reads a suspect's Miranda Rights at the time of his arrest but doesn't proceed to question him until after they reach the police station, would the officer be required to re-read the suspect his Miranda Rights before beginning her questioning?

[Citicop]

As long as the suspect was advised of his or her rights before the questioning, then the questioning is legal and admissible.

We don't usually Mirandize people here until we get to the station, and we have a form that gets filled out at that time that gets entered into evidence.

-Citicop.

[Kimble]

If an officer reads a suspect's Miranda Rights at the time of his arrest but doesn't proceed to question him until after they reach the police station, would the officer be required to re-read the suspect his Miranda Rights before beginning her questioning?

No. If a patient signs a medical waiver prior to going in for surgery does the surgeon have to get a second waiver for exactly the same thing just before giving the patient anesthesia? Nope.

[QldCop]

I give "The Right to Silence" at the time of arrest and then back at the station during the Electronic Recorded Interview. Just on the off chance they start talking in the car on the way back to the station, so what they say can still be used in court and not be argued by their Legal Eagle Rep...

[Joeyd6]

I give "The Right to Silence" at the time of arrest and then back at the station during the Electronic Recorded Interview. Just on the off chance they start talking in the car on the way back to the station, so what they say can still be used in court and not be argued by their Legal Eagle Rep...

Read rights.....they talk....what grounds would there be for a dismissal?

Even if you don't read to them, as long as you don't ask during the car ride, anything they say is "in." Only "out" if you start asking questions having not read Miranda. Are you asking questions in the car or worried about spontaneous utterance?

[Kimble]

Read rights.....they talk....what grounds would there be for a dismissal?

Even if you don't read to them, as long as you don't ask during the car ride, anything they say is "in." Only "out" if you start asking questions having not read Miranda. Are you asking questions in the car or worried about spontaneous utterance?

Note that QldCop is in Australia, their laws of testimonial evidence may be much different from here in the U.S.

[Joeyd6]

Note that QldCop is in Australia, their laws of testimonial evidence may be much different from here in the U.S.

That is right!

[anaserrata]

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me.

[anaserrata]

So if someone's in custody and in the back of a cop car but he hasn't been read his rights ...
... if he confesses or admits to taking part in a crime, all of that is inadmissible???

[Citicop]

So if someone's in custody and in the back of a cop car but he hasn't been read his rights ...
... if he confesses or admits to taking part in a crime, all of that is inadmissible???

Only if the confession or admission is the result of interrogation from the police. A spontaneous confession or admission is still admissible.

[Kimble]

Only if the confession or admission is the result of interrogation from the police. A spontaneous confession or admission is still admissible.

Exactly. Cuffs + questions = Miranda Warning (this isn't saying one has to be handcuffed to be in police custody, just an easy way to remember when Miranda is necessary). I can ask you questions about the crime all day long, and if you aren't in custody and free to leave, no Miranda Warning needed. Alternatively, you can confess on your own free will (whether in custody or not) all day long, and so long as I'm not asking you questions without giving Miranda, your statements are admissible.

[anaserrata]

Ohhh, ok. Thank you so much, Kimble.

[ET109]

"Hey, don't you have to read me my rights?"

"Nope. Quiet down back there, I'm trying to find a good radio station."

"Well... I may have stole a shirt, but I'm gonna get off because I know the law."

"...great, now I've gotta write a supplement cause you just spontaneously confessed."

"Wait, what?"

[scott715us]

So if someone's in custody and in the back of a cop car but he hasn't been read his rights ...
... if he confesses or admits to taking part in a crime, all of that is inadmissible???

Just to elaborate a little more, being in the back of a patrol car or even handcuffed doesn't automatically equate to a custodial situation where Miranda is required. I have transported people in my car to a safer location to conduct Field Sobriety Tests who were not under arrest. I have handcuffed people that I felt were a safety concern without arresting them. It all depends on how you articulate the reason for the detainment and the fact that it has not built up to a defacto arrest/custodial situation yet. With that said, it is an OBJECTIVE standard. Ultimately the trial court has the final say as to whether my actions equated to a custodial situation where Miranda was required. The question is, would a reasonable person put in the defendant's place feel they were under arrest at the time the statements were made?

Now on the other side of the coin, questioning a person in custody is ok without Miranda as long as the questions I ask will not illicit an incriminating response. If I ask you if the vehicle you're driving belongs to you, and you respond by saying "yes, but not the bazooka in the trunk." That answer/confession would be admissible. The question I asked about vehicle ownership would not normally illicit an incriminating answer. Maybe something like, "is that oil dripping from your car?" and you say "nope, it's blood from the person I just chopped up." Again, this is objectionable as well. A reasonable person would not respond in that manner, so Miranda likely isn't going to apply and the statement (and any incriminating evidence subsequently found) would be admissible.

There is a good US Supreme Court case involving questioning of a murder suspect that came to be known as the "Christian burial" case. Two detectives picked up a murder suspect, one of which knew that the suspect was very religious. The missing victim in the case was a little girl. The detective starts talking about how it was only right to find the little girl so that the parents could give her a proper "Christian" burial. Although he didn't ask questions directly, he knew the conversation would likely illicit incriminating statements out of the murder suspect. The suspect told the detectives where the little girl's body was and his statements (and evidence found - i.e. little girl's body) were used to convict him. It went up to the Supreme Court and the admission was suppressed. He had invoked his right to remain silent/counsel prior to the trip (or at least his two attorneys did) and the court looked at the conversation as a violation of his 5th/6th Amendment rights.

If you're interested in reading the entire case, here's the cite:

BREWER v. WILLIAMS, 430 U.S. 387 (1977)*

[ChesCopPodz]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little with you scott715us. The back of the car custody depends on the circumstances. I totally agree.

Being handcuffed however, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule that someone in handcuffs could reasonably feel that they were not in custody. I fully realize you stated that the handcuffed subject would be a lot more difficult to explain why they weren't in custody. I'd go a step further though and say that I would always mirandize someone in handcuffs if I planned to question him/her