Miranda Rights?

[Padre]

Ok Plz only serious and ppl that have had experience with this, not the CSI , Law and order watching fools that believe everything on TV.


A relative of mine just was arrested,(female) by 12 FBI agents and 2 CID(Army) agents.

why in the world it took that many i do not know.

but she was taken in to see judge and formally be charged. after a three year investigation.

At no time was she read her Miranda rights. the Agents thought that she would cry or faint or god knows what so no one was prepared to read her rights.

even at the time of "booking" at which they went to Subway to buy her lunch, they didnt read any rights.

at the time she was given an attorney and stood in front of Judge to be issued the bond amount and trail date.


So , question is , can this TRULY be thrown out of court. or will some agent step up and lie to save this from being thrown out.

 

[Phenom]

The Miranda Warning

The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.

As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.

 

[Dice34]

I'm going to say no.......I don't think they have to read you your rights when they are arresting you, they only read them when they want to question you.........if they arrest you and do not read you your rights, then I beleive anything you say cannot be held against you in a trial

 

[BetterUp]

It pretty much depends on what she told them. If she gave incriminating information without being mirandised this could be thrown out.

If she has said nothing incriminating, probably doesn't help much.

A three year investigation and that many thugs. Sounds like they may want to win this one. GL

 

[Morris]

What did her lawyer say about this?

 

[THE KOD]

after three years of investigating I doubt they need to read any rights.

They already have the nuts on her.

what the hell are the charges?

sounds like terrorism or worse:scared

 

[vinnie]

They don't need anything from her they already have enough pictures, video, phone tapes or what ever other evidence they need to convict her.

You said it all right here :
A relative of mine just was arrested,(female) by 12 FBI agents and 2 CID(Army) agents.:sadwave:

 

[Tenzing]

The way it works

The way it works

....is for most crimes you have to be arraigned within 72 hours of being physically detained. So, they usually wait til right before you are brought before the magistrate to Mirandize you. They do so in a big group, that is to say you are all Mirandized at the same time, all of you who are being arraigned. The amount of time is not set in stone tho, people have been and are being detained indefinitely without being arraigned or Mirandized, and courts allow it.

 

[parlayinn]

Miranda has to do with confessions as a result of custodial interrogation. The fact that she wasn't read her rights does not make her arrest unconstitutional. If she gave verbal confessions as a result of interrogation without having her rights read to her, then those statements may not be admitted.

 

[zoomer]

Ok Plz only serious and ppl that have had experience with this, not the CSI , Law and order watching fools that believe everything on TV.


A relative of mine just was arrested,(female) by 12 FBI agents and 2 CID(Army) agents.

why in the world it took that many i do not know.

but she was taken in to see judge and formally be charged. after a three year investigation.

At no time was she read her Miranda rights. the Agents thought that she would cry or faint or god knows what so no one was prepared to read her rights.

even at the time of "booking" at which they went to Subway to buy her lunch, they didnt read any rights.

at the time she was given an attorney and stood in front of Judge to be issued the bond amount and trail date.


So , question is , can this TRULY be thrown out of court. or will some agent step up and lie to save this from being thrown out.

A friend who's an attorney forwarded this to me..




The Miranda rights do not protect you from being arrested, only from incriminating yourself during questioning. All police need to legally arrest a person is "probable cause" -- an adequate reason based on facts and events to believe the person has committed a crime. Police are required to "Read him his (Miranda) rights," only before interrogating a suspect. While failure to do so may cause any subsequent statements to be thrown out of court, the arrest may still be legal and valid.



Also without reading the Miranda rights, police are allowed to ask routine questions like name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number necessary to establishing a person's identity. Police can also administer alcohol and drug tests without warning, but persons being tested may refuse to answer questions during the tests.

 

[snoozer]

I am curious if the rules are different for FBI and Army agents. All the discussions revolves around miranda rights and what the 'police' must do. Would be curious as to if these rules apply for these organizations.

 

[Padre]

Thanks guys for input, put she was brought in on several occasions in the three year period, to answer questions, that were documented and signed, only to be told prior to the questioning that she did not have to answer anything she did not want to and that she could stop questioning at any time, yet not once was she charged with anything and never had a chance to have attorney present.

then out of blue they arrest her.

 

[THE KOD]

only to be told prior to the questioning that she did not have to answer anything she did not want to and that she could stop questioning at any time,

.........................................................

If a cop ever says these words to you , its time to clam up and get a attorney quick.:scared

its bullchit you wont say what she is charged with. we dont know her , it would be easier to ascertain what is going on.

Geez Louise

 

[Padre]

.........................................................



its bullchit you wont say what she is charged with. we dont know her , it would be easier to ascertain what is going on.

Geez Louise

Hey "K"iss "O"f "D"eath,

what does the charge have to do with it, if she was charged with terrorism to streaking on a military base, does it matter, that she was never read her rights?


SOC - scared of cats

 

[acesfull]

No it will not be thrown out. Anything she might have said without a lawyer present could be dismissed, if she can prove she was not read her rights, which will not be easy. Ive been in a similar situation.

 

[THE KOD]

Hey "K"iss "O"f "D"eath,

what does the charge have to do with it, if she was charged with terrorism to streaking on a military base, does it matter, that she was never read her rights?

........................................................

yeh it does matter.

quit wasting our time. she deserves jail from the sounds of it.