· As a general rule, it is always a good idea to remain silent until your attorney arrives. Police may attempt to ask you all kinds of questions before your lawyer arrives, but it is important to stay silent in the vast majority of cases. Simply inform any officers present that you are exercising your right to remain silent, and they are legally ...
· Your nephew can be questioned without an attorney up until he tells the police that he wants an attorney. Once he tells the police that he wants an attorney, by law, the police are required to stop questioning him. He should come before a judge within 72 hours of his arrest for his first appearance hearing. Darrell 0 found this answer helpful
The most common of these by far is how police interrogations function. Several people I’ve spoken with believed that if they were to be questioned by police, they would have the right to …
· In other words, in some cases, the police can stop someone for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior — even when there is no probable cause to make an …
After an arrest, when the police place you in an interview room, your answer to the first question should be, “I am invoking my right to remain silent. I want to contact my attorney.”
If you are arrested for a crime and booked into jail, then the police must inform you of your Miranda rights before they can question you.
Your right to an attorney during criminal prosecutions is provided by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
Not all police interviews take place after an arrest. In many situations, the police become aware a crime has been committed and must investigate to identify potential suspects. The police may wish to question you about a crime if you were a witness or they believe you were involved.
Under section 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a young person (under the age of 18) is required not only to be given the opportunity to speak with counsel, but to have counsel present when they are questioned by police.
Following these cases, it seems the current state of the law is that police may conduct lengthy interrogations and, as long as the Crown can prove that the elicited statements are voluntary, they will be admissible. This is concerning since voluntariness has not proven to be a difficult hurdle for the Crown. For example, in R v Spencer, the Supreme Court found Mr. Spencer’s statements to be voluntary despite the officer implying that the accused’s girlfriend would be charged if he did not confess, and that the officer would recommend a more lenient sentence for her if Mr. Spencer were to confess to a series of robberies. [ix] One way to temper this problem would be a more expansive right for detainees to re-consult counsel during questioning; however post-Sinclair this right is extremely limited. The result, as Justice Binnie described it, is that police interrogations have essentially become endurance contests between the detainee and the police. [x] While the police have unlimited resources and are trained to elicit confessions, an individual in custody must sit there without counsel (and without the opportunity to re-consult counsel) and attempt to wait out the questioning. Too often this proves to be impossible for people to do.
Perhaps the real concern with importing a Miranda -like right for counsel to be present during interrogations was best articulated by Justice Binnie in Sinclair, wherein he noted that Legal Aid does not have the resources to fund counsel’s presence during police interrogations.
If you have been stopped, questioned and arrested or cited by the police, one of the first questions you should ask is whether the initial stop was constitutionally valid. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. This means that, generally, the police cannot seize or search you without a warrant–unless ...
If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, then the officers must prove they had reasonable suspicion for the stop. If not, the stop is invalid and whatever happened next could be thrown out of court.
Further, if you are stopped for a traffic violation, the length of the stop has to be reasonable. Just enough time to check your license, write the ticket, and send you on your way. An officer can’t expand the scope of the stop beyond the purpose of writing a ticket unless there is some other information that makes him suspicious that other crimes are happening or about to happen.
Note that the police cannot stop you just because you have a record. Being a drug user, having a prior DUI on your record, or having committed a crime before is not by itself valid justification to stop you.
An arrest without a warrant is constitutionally valid if the officers had probable cause to make the arrest.
What’s more, the police are even allowed to pat you down if they have a “reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety” before frisking. But in order to do a pat down, the police must have specific facts that they say make them afraid you might have a weapon — they can’t just say they had a hunch.
In other words, in some cases, the police can stop someone for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior — even when there is no probable cause to make an arrest.
Can they continue to question you? Yes. Officers are often encouraged to continue asking questions as the answers can lead to evidence indirectly that can be used against you. Can they use your answers against you? Probably not. As posted above, the demand for a lawyer must generally be clear and unequivocal. Officers often read you your Miranda rights and immediately begin questioning. If you answer the...
Simply asking for a lawyer does at some stage of a police contact does not prevent them from Mirandizing you and then asking for a Miranda waiver. If they read you your rights and then you asked for a lawyer and admitted that in the police report or recorded it, then you will be able to suppress those statements.
No police cannot and no, those statements cannot be used against you. However, a lot of the time, the police will state in their report, they you waived your Miranda rights. You would have to prove that you didn't and then you could suppress any statements made in violation of Miranda...
Your attorney should move to suppress the statements. While I do not know if that will be successful, it is certainly something that should be done pre-trial or in limine.
The police are not allowed to question you after you have asked for a lawyer. However, if you agreed to talk to them after they read you your Miranda rights and you did so voluntarily (without pressure, duress, coercion, etc), then the questioning is legal and the answers you gave can be used against you.