Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Alpo

New cop question

Recommended Posts

Y'all ever heard of this? Do they do this now where you work?

 

This is a cop novel. They arrest the guy, and they read him his rights, and then they have him sign the Miranda card. They told him that this was showing that he was acknowledging that they had read him his rights.

 

First time I've ever heard of such a thing, but then I try real hard not to get arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this before or after his hands are cuffed behind his back?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They uncuffed one hand so that he could sign.

 

He said "I ain't signing nothin'."

 

They told him that was fine - he could continue to lie in the snow while he thought about it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we were going to question the suspect, we didn't even read them their rights.  Miranda only applies to in-custody questioning.  If they ain't under arrest, then Miranda doesn't apply.  We had Miranda Waver forms for formal questioning but they weren't always used since most of our questioning was video taped.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in my day upon speaking to a suspect involved in a serious crime I had the suspect form which begins with the Miranda warning where the suspect reads it then signs it. The next question on the form they also read which states if they will talk to the police or not. 

My personal form read like this;

"You have the right to remain silent, so exercise it".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have the ability.

 

Ron White

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

That is weird.

 

         "The Court held 5-4 that unless, or until, the suspect specifically stated that he was invoking his right to silence, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in court and police could continue questioning."

 

That appears to say that if, for example, I am being questioned about a murder, if I specifically state "I am invoking my right to remain silent", then my subsequent voluntary statements - "I killed that sucker" - cannot be used against me because I have invoked my right to remain silent.

 

That's idiotic.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alpo, if you invoke your right to remain silent and then later blurt out, "I killed that sucker", that is considered 'res gesti', (sp) or a spontaneous utterance.  You didn't make the statement as a result of questioning.  You just blabbed it out.  That is admissible.   Statements about your confessions to your jail cell mate are admissible as long as the cell mate is not acting as an agent for the government.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it Alpo, that unsolvable crime you talked about last year will get solved, the body will be found, and you will get the death penalty. Fear not I know some damn good death penalty lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

Unless we were going to question the suspect, we didn't even read them their rights.  Miranda only applies to in-custody questioning.  If they ain't under arrest, then Miranda doesn't apply.  We had Miranda Waver forms for formal questioning but they weren't always used since most of our questioning was video taped.  

 

What Badlands Bob said.

 

But my department did have such a form.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alpo said:

That is weird.

 

         "The Court held 5-4 that unless, or until, the suspect specifically stated that he was invoking his right to silence, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in court and police could continue questioning."

 

That appears to say that if, for example, I am being questioned about a murder, if I specifically state "I am invoking my right to remain silent", then my subsequent voluntary statements - "I killed that sucker" - cannot be used against me because I have invoked my right to remain silent.

 

That's idiotic.

 

 

 

Not true.  You made a "spontaneous utterance," which is admissible in court.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said:

 

Not true.  You made a "spontaneous utterance," which is admissible in court.

Unsolicited and spontaneous utterance.  Seen more than one hang themselves out to dry by this method.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

Unsolicited and spontaneous utterance.  Seen more than one hang themselves out to dry by this method.

 

Yep.  One of my interrogation tactics if they "invoked" (i.e. invoked their right to remain silent) was to sit and stare at them for 10 minutes, saying absolutely nothing.  The silence drives them crazy, and eventually they blurt something out.  Since I didn't solicit anything, it was always admissible.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always loved the unemployed lawyers who proclaimed they were getting out of whatever charges because I didn't read them their rights...

 

Yeah, you be sure to tell the judge that... :) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

Always loved the unemployed lawyers who proclaimed they were getting out of whatever charges because I didn't read them their rights...

 

Yeah, you be sure to tell the judge that... :) 

 

TV has people thinking it's an automatic thing -- slap in the matching bracelets, read Miranda.  It simply is NOT TRUE.  As someone else pointed out, Miranda applies ONLY TO IN CUSTODY QUESTIONING!  

 

I spent a few years in our DUI Enforcement Unit, and spent a lot of time in driver's license hearings (separate from the criminal proceedings).  One guy represented himself, and the entire crux of the argument was that I had never read him his rights.  He didn't deny being drunk, didn't question any of my evidence, didn't question any procedures, didn't question the blood test.  He simply argued I had never read his rights. 

 

Under oath, I admitted I had never read them, and explained I gathered all the evidence prior to the arrest.  Thus, post arrest, there was no need for any questioning.  The hearing officer agreed, ruled against him, and revoked his license.  

 

Now repeat that story 18 billion times and I got paid a lot of overtime.  I would have rather been at home asleep, as I was running on 30 minutes - 2 hours of sleep per day at the time.  You can keep the overtime.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

Always loved the unemployed lawyers who proclaimed they were getting out of whatever charges because I didn't read them their rights...

 

Yeah, you be sure to tell the judge that... :) 

 

I couldn't tell you how many times I was told:  "You can't arrest me.  You didn't read me my rights."  Really?  Watch this.   <c-c-c-c-c-c-c=click   c-c-c-c-c-c-click> as the cuffs ratchet closed.

 

I worked next to a University.  Everybody was a law student, or their daddy was an attorney.

 

Angus

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always started my interrogation with, "Well, did he/she deserve it"? Man, they would just smile and the mouth would be off and running. Yea, Yea, tell me all about it.:lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal favorite call was a 17 year old thug from out of state who got caught shoplifting.  There was a group of thugs that were grabbing arms loads of clothing and running out the door.  He was the one who got caught by security.  Apparently he had been caught numerous times before and was always released to his parent due to being a juvenile.  He wanted to know if I wanted his mother's phone number.  I got to inform him that he was considered an adult in Georgia at age 17 and I didn't care if his mother ever found out what jail he was in.   I also congratulated him for now having a felony arrest record that would follow him the rest of his life.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

My personal favorite call was a 17 year old thug from out of state who got caught shoplifting.  There was a group of thugs that were grabbing arms loads of clothing and running out the door.  He was the one who got caught by security.  Apparently he had been caught numerous times before and was always released to his parent due to being a juvenile.  He wanted to know if I wanted his mother's phone number.  I got to inform him that he was considered an adult in Georgia at age 17 and I didn't care if his mother ever found out what jail he was in.   I also congratulated him for now having a felony arrest record that would follow him the rest of his life.  

 

YES!!  Similar story.  Local PITA we had a long history with was arrested at 0230 on the morning of his 17th birthday for breaking into and trying to steal a car.   Sorry, not sorry.  We're not calling your mommy to come pick you up anymore.  You get to go to the big boy jail now.

 

Isn't it amazing how many thugs want to call their mommy when they get locked up?

 

One of our cells was right outside the roll call room so everybody (we ALL knew him) got to stop by and wish him a happy birthday.  

 

Angus

 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I got my law degree at the Holiday Inn.

LEO is required to read Miranda and get a confirmation of understanding when the suspect is arrested. The form you had them sign, was it in Spanish, Japanese, Chinese etc.? If English is their second language how can they be expected to sign something they may not be able to read, or understand!

Watching a lot of 2nd amendment and 1st amendment audits on YouTube. I'm surprised how many LEO's tell people that the 5th amendment doesn't apply until they are arrested. Anyone can invoke the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment as soon as a LEO engages them. Which is the smart thing to do. Don't answer questions, don't approve them searching you or your car without PC. Terry frisk can't be denied.

I'm also surprised how many LEO's don't seem to understand or don't want to understand when they can ask for ID. Driving a car, sure if they pulled you over for a traffic violation. Some states don't require ID until you've been formally arrested, like Texas. And yet the Texas LEO's seem to pass that buy and then threaten to arrest people for failure to ID!.

 

Three CCW classes now over the years. Every time the instructor said, 'If you use your weapon do not under any circumstances speak to the police or answer their questions. Invoke the 5th and ask for your lawyer'. Other than to tell them , that this is your gun and I have made it safe. Hands away from the gun at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEO is not required to read Miranda when suspect is arrested.  Only when questioned while in custody.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.