911 and the law...

What about the standard:

1) I was attacked (personal description, location, time)
2) Evidence location (knife, dead bad guy)
3) Witnesses if any and their location
4) I will completely cooperate with the investigation after engaging my lawyer.

This should apply after an attack. If you call in the middle of an attempted home invasion etc you could give your location in the house while waiting for police. Most 911 calls I have heard show the fear in the persons voice which would be good in court.

45acpForMe said:

Most 911 calls I have heard show the fear in the persons voice which would be good in court.

Click to expand...

I have seen in Virginia Beach where they have an audio meter which gauges breathing and speaking tone to aid in determining urgency.

How many people having practiced at the range and suddenly find themselves defending their lives will be able to coherently remember what to say and how to say it. It seems in the area of 911 calls you all think that you will always say the right thing, in the right way, and it will be clear cut. Will you remember such actions? Will you remember everything and the order in which you said it? Do you want to make claims, remember that the prosecutors job is to prosecute you for homicide? The 911 calls that 'prove' self-defense are usually when someone calls while somebody is breaking in and blow by blow is given.

But if you have the right to remain silent, and to an attorney, how much do you, or don't you say on the state recorded call to 911, which is fully admissible to court. You are being naive (in my opinion) if you think that you are protected by your call to 911. You just waived a right to silence, and after a shooting I doubt any except a few of the best trained individuals will be able to keep silent and not say the wrong or too many things, with details that will change over the next few hours, or days. How do you now for sure that just because you were justified, that the state will see it that way, or you say something in your call that makes a supposition that doesn't sound 'true?'

wylde007 said:

I have seen in Virginia Beach where they have an audio meter which gauges breathing and speaking tone to aid in determining urgency.

Click to expand...

What do you think happens, if you call and because of your training, you have defended yourself, the bad guy is down for good, but you call 911 and you are nice and calm?. Not hysterical 'enough' by a machine's judgment, do you think the prosecutor is going to pass up the opportunity to play a recording by a cold-blooded viscous killer, so cold-blooded that the very act didn't make the shooter react 'normally' see how nice and calm he was on this call?

nuc65 said:

This seems to be closer to the heart of the matter.

Click to expand...

Clean wording - I like it.

+1

nuc65 said:

How many people having practiced at the range and suddenly find themselves defending their lives will be able to coherently remember what to say and how to say it.

Click to expand...

My 911 call was screaming blathering half nonsense. They heard the gunshots thought.

simmonsjoe said:

My 911 call was screaming blathering half nonsense. They heard the gunshots thought.

Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing details? Would your 911 call be instructional for the rest of us?

simmonsjoe said:

My 911 call was screaming blathering half nonsense.

Click to expand...

Half nonsense would be an improvement over some people's communication skills these days.

Whatever you say can be used against you... blathering or otherwise.

Miranda and the fifth amendment

In a 911 call wouldn't Miranda case law and the Fifth Amendment still apply if you made any incriminating statments? Afterall the 911 operator does in some form or fashion work for the police department or the city at some level. I know it can be considered an excited utterence which can sometimes be admissable but I would think your lawyer could get it stricken if you were incriminating yourself due to a violation of your Fifth Amendment rights. Just a thought.

Welcome to OCDO, Saint1911!

Good points in your statement. Thank you for your input.

+1 Welcome Saint - like to call people by their 1st name.

Always good to have another thinker on board.

MSC 45ACP said:

Welcome to OCDO, Saint1911!

Good points in your statement. Thank you for your input.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I've been lurking for a while but I felt like this topic particularly important. Without being administered your miranda right a confession is inadmissable as evidence and it seems a situation like this would apply as well. There is plenty of case law and constitutional law in the topic of self incrimination. I would personally be more concerned with the repercussions of NOT calling 911 because the inaction or reluctance to call 911 may be twisted by a prosecuter as "The defendant obviosly felt he had something to hide and by not calling 911 he directly caused the needless death of his victim" Lawyers can be very good at twisting the truth without lying.

I think it is most important that you can articulate why you felt threatened and why you used deadly force after the fact, when the adrenaline has stopped flowing.

Saint1911 said:

Thank you. I've been lurking for a while but I felt like this topic particularly important. Without being administered your miranda right a confession is inadmissable as evidence and it seems a situation like this would apply as well. There is plenty of case law and constitutional law in the topic of self incrimination. I would personally be more concerned with the repercussions of NOT calling 911 because the inaction or reluctance to call 911 may be twisted by a prosecuter as "The defendant obviosly felt he had something to hide and by not calling 911 he directly caused the needless death of his victim" Lawyers can be very good at twisting the truth without lying.

I think it is most important that you can articulate why you felt threatened and why you used deadly force after the fact, when the adrenaline has stopped flowing.

Click to expand...

The Miranda warning only applies if you're being charged. Statements one makes during the excitement of a 911 call could also be considered as voluntary, instead of excited utterances. Obviously, someone would have to decide which is which. However, there's nothing to stop the police from using your own words to pressure you into providing a post-Miranda confession. By the time you get to court, your accounting of what happened will likely be very different from the one you initially gave the police.

Everything I've read about these situations indicates that extreme caution is to be observed by the caller. If someone else (e.g. family member) makes the call (and there may be other callers), they also need to excercise some judgement about what they say. "Oh, my god, my husband just shot someone." vs "My husband just shot a burglar." One statement conveys a threat, the other not so much.

2a4all said:

The Miranda warning only applies if you're being charged. Statements one makes during the excitement of a 911 call could also be considered as voluntary, instead of excited utterances. ...

....If someone else (e.g. family member) makes the call (and there may be other callers), they also need to excercise some judgement about what they say. "Oh, my god, my husband just shot someone." vs "My husband just shot a burglar." One statement conveys a threat, the other not so much.

Click to expand...

The miranda law applies any time you are questioned as a suspect. It is not limited to only when you are charged. The Fifth Amendment is valid at all times. If the police question you at the scene even before you are charged, miranda applies.

Wording however is important and in the event that it is considered grey area. I can see where the wording may very well determine if the judge allows the recording as evidence or not.

I will say that as Base Police, when a witness made a statment that incriminated themselves I had to give them a cleansing statement and the advise them of their rights. Anything said prior to the cleansing statement whether verbal, written, or recorded was not admissible because they had not been advised of their rights. That was based soley on federal case law.

BTW,
I appologize if I come across as a know it all. I know I have just joined up so I don't want to act in bad form. This is just a topic I am passionate about.

Saint1911 said:

BTW,
I appologize if I come across as a know it all. I know I have just joined up so I don't want to act in bad form. This is just a topic I am passionate about.

Click to expand...

Actually I am glad for the input and discussion. 911 calls are played in courts especially if they 'sound' incriminating. The play of the call has not been challenged based on miranda that I know of, although I am sure that the judge 'allowed' the playback. It would seem that in the moment of panic one should have privacy, and I have found 1 case where the defendant was acquitted on appeal convicted because he did not report the crime and feared malicious prosecution.

911 is not required by law, but probably if you don't call it will be mentioned in your trial in a negative light, but sadly it is not a 'protected' communication. I think it should be based on high stress and fear levels, that it should be a privileged communique.

I know 911 calls are played as evidence in trials, but is there any case law or precedent where the person who called 911 had their own call used against them and more specifically has it happened in a self defense situation?

Saint1911 said:

I know 911 calls are played as evidence in trials, but is there any case law or precedent where the person who called 911 had their own call used against them and more specifically has it happened in a self defense situation?

Click to expand...

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7003633

There are many examples of 911 calls being played in the news, at trials, and on the internet. A few links have been posted on this forum. There are examples that demonstrate the stress someone is under (typically) when they call 911. I don't doubt the calls can be incriminating, but I am thinking that our rights should be protected for doing the right thing, calling for emergency services.

Saint1911 said:

The miranda law applies any time you are questioned as a suspect. It is not limited to only when you are charged. The Fifth Amendment is valid at all times. If the police question you at the scene even before you are charged, miranda applies.

Click to expand...

Ummm. No it doesn't. Neither is it only when you are charged. It applies at a very specific point.

There is a reason this forum requires cites*, and recommends quotes and links. Had this been applied, the members would have discovered their error while composing their posts. Members, please do not spread wrong information. If you are unsure, it is better to qualify the statement by saying, "I vaguely recall that..."; or present it as a question, "Doesn't...?" Something other than a flat declaration about the law.

Miranda vs Arizona:

Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but, briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. (bold emphasis added by Citizen)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html

Compare/contrast with cases where a detained, but not arrested, suspect answered police questions or volunteered statements.


*5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules