Originally posted by Maverick
You might want to rethink the Miranda statement there. Any time you are questioning a suspect and are narrowed down to that individual as a participant in a crime, asking questions related to the offense, you must mirandize or lose the answers for court. Miranda has nothing to do with custody or not. You do not need to be under arrest to be accorded Miranda warning and protection. Once someone is a suspect, in custody or not, and you want to question them about the crime or crimes in question you must give the Miranda warning.
Maverick,
This is a very common misconception by police officers. The deciding factor in Miranda is CUSTODY... No other situation other than CUSTODY, commonly considered by courts to be "ARREST OR FUNCTIONAL EQUIVELENT OF ARREST" requires Miranda Warnings. Having said that, to be on the safe side it may be best to give Miranda Warnings in situations you are unsure if they may be needed, however, in doing so you offer the suspect the chance to "lawyer up" when it is not needed to do so.
If your state courts are relying on MIRANDA which is a US Supreme Court Case in deciding when you have to give "Miranda Warnings" then custody is the defining issue. However if they are using your State Constitution in deciding these cases they have the right to provide MORE PROTECTION to their citizens than required by the US Constitution.
The US Constitution sets the MINIMUM RIGHTS provided to all citizens, however states always have the right to provide even greater protections to the citizens of that particular state.
I will paste this below which I found doing a search on Miranda vs Arizona. If you so desire I can provide you with numerous Appelant and Supreme Court cases in which Miranda was decided in Pennsylvania, which has adopted the federal standard in such cases.
Hope this helps you out. Dont give the suspects a chance to go silent when it is not necessary.
Miranda vs. Arizona Court Case
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)
Ernesto Miranda, a rape suspect, was arrested and taken to the police station. After two hours of questioning, he signed a written confession and was subsequently found guilty. Miranda appealed his conviction on the grounds that prior to confessing, he had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction, finding that the coercive nature of detention in a police station necessitates certain safeguards in order to ensure that suspects do not naively waive their rights. The ruling held that when law enforcement officers take a suspect into custody with the intention of conducting an interrogation, they must inform the suspect of certain fundamental conditions:
The suspect has the right to remain silent.
Anything the suspect says can be used against him/her in court.
The suspect has the right to an attorney.
If the suspect cannot afford an attorney one will be provided at no charge.
The Court imposed these limitations upon law enforcement officers for the purpose of ensuring that criminal suspects do not waive constitutional rights as a result of not knowing how to properly exercise them. This ruling had broad ramifications for all police officers, who have since been required to issue Miranda warnings to all suspects that are arrested and taken into custody.
What you should know about your Miranda Rights:
We are all aware of the contents of the Miranda warning. It is recited on police shows everyday and can be repeated verbatim by most Americans, though often without a thorough understanding of its significance. In short, the Miranda warning is an acknowledgement of the criminal suspect’s right to take what is always the best course of action for any arrestee: say nothing until you’ve spoken with a lawyer.
Still, the Miranda warning is frequently misunderstood as encompassing all lawful detentions by police. It should be noted that Miranda does not apply under the following circumstances:
Questions asked at a crime scene
Any statements volunteered by the suspect at any time
Questioning of individuals for fact-finding purposes
Questioning during an investigatory stop
These exceptions are significant in that they encompass many situations in which police acquire important evidence from suspects who are under no legal obligation to answer questions. In many cases, police officers acquire probable cause to arrest a suspect due to his/her own answers to police questions at the crime scene. Thus the following should be remembered with regards to Miranda warnings:
If police have arrested you and plan to ask you questions about a crime, they must read you a Miranda warning
While this process is often referred to as “reading you your rights” police will only inform you of your right against self-incrimination and your right to an attorney
Other than identifying yourself, you are under no obligation to disclose information to the police at any time
The right against self-incrimination excludes statements made voluntarily; Anything you say to a police officer at any time can be used against you
There is no reason to disclose information to the police about your involvement in a crime prior to speaking with a lawyer
<<<
>>
