Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
killchain wrote:
While helpful, I think that information, while not incorrect, is sufficiently incomplete to leave a mistaken impression.
I've read numerous court opinions where the suspects pre-Miranda comments ended up in evidence.
Miranda is clear. Policeare only required to give the Miranda Warning prior to questioning that occurs after a custodial seizure--an arrest. There have been plenty of cases where the questioning occurred in situations outside of a police interrogation room--cases where the court was deciding whether some other location or situation besides an interrogation room was "custodial" enough to be equivalent, thus triggering the Miranda Warning requirement. Was the small room off the airport concourse, surrounded by officers, while in hand-cuffs, but not yet told under arrest, sufficiently "custodial" in nature that a person should have been Mirandized? That sort of thing.
But, Miranda does not say that all questioning without the warning is unconstitutional. Nor does it say that all pre-warning statements and comments are inadmissable. Nor does Miranda require the warning during the questioning during a Terry detention. Not that I recall anyway.
Terry permits investigative questions, both during a consensual encounter and a detention. Although thesuspected citizendoes not have to answer, if the answers provide probable cause, is the person not subject to arrest? Arepolice during a Terry Stop/detention asking questions in order to either 1) dispel suspicion or 2) aquire from answers or evidence probable cause? (I know the answer, I just can't cite, thus cannot declare the law, thus I have to ask it as a question.)
Miranda: (this is a long opinion, but it is easy to read--little legalese or latin--and is well worth reading. It is very educational.)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html
Terry:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
killchain wrote:
Thank you for linking to a source.SNIP It's happened quite often that statements and evidence collected prior to Miranda readings have been thrown out in court.
Hence the MIRANDA RULING.
WHERE IT HAPPENED.
http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html
Man, you guys just can't stop fighting about anything, can you?
While helpful, I think that information, while not incorrect, is sufficiently incomplete to leave a mistaken impression.
I've read numerous court opinions where the suspects pre-Miranda comments ended up in evidence.
Miranda is clear. Policeare only required to give the Miranda Warning prior to questioning that occurs after a custodial seizure--an arrest. There have been plenty of cases where the questioning occurred in situations outside of a police interrogation room--cases where the court was deciding whether some other location or situation besides an interrogation room was "custodial" enough to be equivalent, thus triggering the Miranda Warning requirement. Was the small room off the airport concourse, surrounded by officers, while in hand-cuffs, but not yet told under arrest, sufficiently "custodial" in nature that a person should have been Mirandized? That sort of thing.
But, Miranda does not say that all questioning without the warning is unconstitutional. Nor does it say that all pre-warning statements and comments are inadmissable. Nor does Miranda require the warning during the questioning during a Terry detention. Not that I recall anyway.
Terry permits investigative questions, both during a consensual encounter and a detention. Although thesuspected citizendoes not have to answer, if the answers provide probable cause, is the person not subject to arrest? Arepolice during a Terry Stop/detention asking questions in order to either 1) dispel suspicion or 2) aquire from answers or evidence probable cause? (I know the answer, I just can't cite, thus cannot declare the law, thus I have to ask it as a question.)
Miranda: (this is a long opinion, but it is easy to read--little legalese or latin--and is well worth reading. It is very educational.)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html
Terry:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html