Dec 16, 2004 · Also, the person may stop answering questions at any time, which means that all questioning by police must cease as well. In addition, an individual has a right to have their attorney present if they do decide to answer any questions. If they decide to exercise this right, then their request for an attorney must be made in a clear and direct ...
Jan 25, 2019 · An explicit request for an attorney requires all questioning to cease. If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions. Three days later, the detectives interviewed Medina again.
Answer (1 of 11): NO!! But read on. The police only have a RIGHT to hold or talk to you if they have arrested you. Anything less and you have the right to walk away, shut the door or whatever you want to do the end the encounter (except assault to cop). If …
7031 Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton, CA 94566. master:2021-10-20_10-59-58. Once someone detained by the police invokes their Miranda rights by expressing a desire to remain silent, have counsel present, or both, the police must stop the interrogation. But this isn't necessarily the end of the story: Some circumstances allow the prosecution to use ...
Although asking for an attorney requires officers to cease questioning you, they may still arrest you if they think you have committed a crime or they have enough reason to believe you have committed a crime. If you spontaneously or voluntarily speak without being questioned, your words can be used against you.
Being questioned without legal advice Once you've asked for legal advice, the police can't question you until you've got it - with some exceptions. The police can make you wait for legal advice in serious cases, but only if a senior officer agrees.
You have the constitutional right to remain silent. In general, you do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even if you do not feel free to walk away from the officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer a question.
You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.
You do not have to answer any police questions. But if you are suspected of committing a crime, this may give the police grounds to arrest you. The police cannot search you or your property unless they have a valid search warrant.May 14, 2021
You don't have to answer any questions the police officer asks you, unless the officer suspects you are linked to an offence. The fact that the police may have stopped someone does not mean they are guilty of an offence.
If the police have enough evidence to charge a suspect without an interview, then in such circumstances an interview may not take place, as the police do not require any further evidence.
You have never committed a criminal offense, so when the police ask you to come down to the station for questioning, it may not occur to you that doing so may cause problems. However, unbeknownst to you, the police may consider you a person of interest.Jul 28, 2018
If you're contacted by a detective, you should talk to an attorney right away. Your attorney will be able to talk to law enforcement on your behalf and may be able to mitigate circumstances before charges are even brought to light. It is always in your best interest to seek legal counsel before it is too late.Jul 24, 2020
Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use for most purposes anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.Aug 12, 2020
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be ...
When questioned by the police, you have the right to remain silent. So, you don’t have to answer any questions if you are under arrest.If you do de...
While the general rule is that you don't have to respond to questions from the police, there are some situations where you may be required to provi...
When making an arrest, police are required to give the Miranda warning, which advises people of their rights under the constitution.Even if you are...
No. If you have not been arrested the police do not have to read you your rights. The rights referred to are you Miranda Rights. These rights are i...
Even if the officer is mistaken, you do not have the right to keep walking. As long as the officer has a good faith belief in your connection to cr...
If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions. Three days later, the detectives interviewed Medina again.
An explicit request for an attorney requires all questioning to cease. If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions.
Medina argued he merely began a routine conversation about something unrelated to the murder. The court acknowledged truly routine conversation about an unrelated topic would not signal a suspect’s desire to talk about the murder.
96 (1975)), the Supreme Court allowed a second interrogation after the suspect had invoked the right to remain silent upon consideration of four factors: The interrogation immediately ceased when the defendant said he did not want to talk anymore.
KEN WALLENTINE is the Chief of the West Jordan (Utah) Police Department and former Chief of Law Enforcement for the Utah Attorney General.
Sergio Medina sent a text message to his fiancée telling her he had to “take someone out.”. When Medina didn’t return home, his fiancée called a mutual friend, who told her not to worry about Medina, but to “keep an eye on the news.”. The next morning, the victim was found dead on the side of a road; she had been stabbed several times.
If a detainee invokes the right to counsel for only a limited purpose, the police may interrogate "around" that purpose. For example, suppose that, after being Mirandized, Becky doesn't claim her Miranda rights and answers questions.
A suspect's assertion of the right to counsel ceases to apply if there is a break in incarceration. The assertion of the right doesn't carry over to the next detention. For example, assume Glen invokes his right to counsel and is released from custody.
What it means to "honor" the right to remain silent after a suspect invokes it isn't always entirely clear. Courts consider the circumstances of renewed questioning, including the passage of time, whether the police gave fresh Miranda warnings, and whether they asked questions about a different crime. For example, suppose the police arrest George ...
If Glen invokes his right to counsel while captive in jail and officers return several hours later and begin questioning him again, while he is still in jail, then they have violated Miranda. However, suppose Glen has been serving time in prison when officers first approach him.
There's no time limit for invoking Miranda rights. After receiving the warnings, a detainee may invoke the rights immediately or after answering some questions. Whenever that invocation occurs, the police must stop investigative questioning. But any statements preceding assertion of Miranda rights are likely to be admissible.
Any Time Now. There's no time limit for invoking Miranda rights. After receiving the warnings, a detainee may invoke the rights immediately or after answering some questions. Whenever that invocation occurs, the police must stop investigative questioning.
The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent through this site could be intercepted or read by third parties. Once someone detained by the police invokes Miranda by expressing a desire to remain silent, have counsel present, or both, the police must stop interrogation.
A suspect in police custody agrees to an interview. He answers some of the officers' questions, then says, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.". The officers ask the suspect whether he's requesting a lawyer; the suspect says no. After a short break and the officers reminding the suspect of his rights, the suspect continues to talk.
U.S. (512 U.S. 453 (1994).) The Court noted that if a suspect invokes the right to counsel at any time, the police must at once stop the questioning until a lawyer is present. (A suspect can also invoke the right to remain silent—see Is post-arrest silence enough to stop police questioning?) But the Court also said that, after a suspect waives the Miranda rights, officers may continue asking questions until the suspect makes a clear request for a lawyer.
But the Court also said that, after a suspect waives the Miranda rights, officers may continue asking questions until the suspect makes a clear request for a lawyer. If the comment is ambiguous—if a reasonable officer would interpret it as a potential request for a lawyer—then the police can continue interrogating.
The lawyer’s job is to protect your rights. Once you say that you want to talk to a lawyer, officers should stop asking you questions. If they continue to ask questions, you still have the right to remain silent. If you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak to one before answering questions.
A grand jury subpoena is a written order for you to go to court and testify about information you may have. If a law enforcement officer threatens to get a subpoena, you still do not have to answer the officer’s questions right then and there, and anything you do say can be used against you. The officer may or may not succeed in getting ...
In general, you do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even if you do not feel free to walk away from the officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer a question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions.
You have the right to say that you do not want to be interviewed, to have an attorney present, to set the time and place for the interview, to find out the questions they will ask beforehand, and to answer only the questions you feel comfortable answering.
Are there any exceptions to the general rule that I do not have to answer questions? Yes, there are two limited exceptions. First, in some states, you must provide your name to law enforcement officers if you are stopped and told to identify yourself. But even if you give your name, you are not required to answer other questions.
When police begin calling someone at home or work asking for answers to a few questions, it usually means they think the person is connected to a crime. A common initial response to these kind of inquiries is a desire to “clear the air” by voluntarily engaging in questioning.
If an officer has probable cause, he or she can make an arrest. This obviously takes a situation beyond simple questioning. Even if someone being arrested is completely innocent of a crime, law enforcement will take action if they have a reason to believe evidence links him or her to a crime.
There are different rules for each situation. A voluntary encounter is a situation in which a suspect is free to leave whenever he or she wishes to do so. This kind of questioning does not require proof or a warrant.
If you misspeak or accidentally say one name instead of the other, this can cause suspicion. Even if you immediately recognize and correct your error, it’s too late. The police have already made a note of it.
At the very least, an attorney can prevent a suspect from saying something incriminating in front of police. Some people might be concerned that hiring an attorney before charges are filed will make law enforcement suspicious. Even if this is true, suspicion isn’t proof of anything.
Even common behaviors can be grounds for reasonable suspicion. Courts will generally side with police on this issue, but sometimes this law prevents citizens from being detained based on nothing more than a hunch. If an officer has probable cause, he or she can make an arrest.
This kind of questioning does not require proof or a warrant. A situation ceases to be “voluntary” any time police indicate that a suspect cannot leave. A temporary detention takes place when police have “reasonable suspicion” to believe an offense has been committed and the person being questioned was involved.
Post-invocation questioning is also permitted if the suspect notified officers that he had changed his mind and was now willing to talk with them about his case. 41 As the
If so, and if he waives his Miranda rights, officers may question him about the crime for which he invoked, or any other crime.7 The United States Supreme Court announced this rule in the case of Michigan v. Mosley in which it explained, “[T]he admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored.”8 To see how this rule works, it will be helpful to look at what happened in Mosley. After arresting Mosley for committing several robberies, Detroit police sought to question him. But he invoked his right to remain silent, saying he did not want to answer any questions about the robberies. The officers then “promptly ceased the interrogation” and booked him into jail.
The second requirement is that the suspect’s decision to initiate questioning must have been made freely. Like the “no pressure” requirement discussed earlier, this essentially means the officers must have honored the invocation, and must not have pressed him to change his mind. As the California Supreme Court explained, “[A] change of mind prompted by continued interrogation and efforts to convince the defendant to communicate with the officers cannot be considered a voluntary, self-initiated conversation.”50 For example, in People v. Superior Court (Zolnay)51 a sheriff’s deputy was questioning two burglary suspects when one of them invoked his right to counsel. The deputy then left the room for a while, saying he believed they were guilty, that the investigation would continue, that they could make his job “easy or tough,” and suggesting they “talk the matter over.” When he returned about ten minutes later, the suspects announced they had decided not to invoke after all. In fact, they confessed. But the California Supreme Court ruled the confessions were inadmissible because, even if the suspects could be said to have initiated the questioning, it was not done freely in view of the deputy’s assertion that the defendants could make his job “easy or tough,” and his asking whether they had reached a decision.
Because Mosley does not apply if the suspect invoked the Miranda right to counsel, follow-up investigators who want to determine if he has changed his mind will need to know which right he invoked. This will depend on what the suspect said when he invoked—his exact words. It is, therefore, essential that officers who take an invocation write in their report what the suspect said; e.g., “I want to talk to a lawyer” (an invocation), “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” (not an invocation).
Officers may seek to question a suspect who has invoked his right to remain silent or his right to counsel if, (1) he was released from custody after he invoked,68 and (2) the break in custody was long enough so that he could have to talked with an attorney.69
Think about the answers to the first two questions you asked. If you’re not being detained and you’re not being arrested, chances are you are free to go. The police cannot keep you without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
When you’re detained by police officers, it’s usually for “brief and cursory” questioning. After the questioning is over, you’ll most likely be released. Officers must have reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect, but this also usually means they don’t have probable cause to arrest you.
So if they’re asking to search your things or asking to enter your home/your car, that usually means they don’t have a warrant and are asking for your consent. Ask whether they have a warrant and if they say no, then you can legally refuse the officers. If they disregard this and continue anyway, call your lawyer ASAP.
You cannot be arrested without probable cause. So if you are being arrested, ask why you are. You have the right to know what you’re being arrested for and charged with.
In general, you shouldn’t give your consent to police officers. They need warrants to search you, your property, or your home. They also need an arrest warrant if they’ve come specifically to arrest you.
Remember: The police know the law well. You probably don’t.
Or perhaps they are attempting to pin a crime on you. Whatever the case with voluntary interactions, you can end the interaction legally at any time. You also cannot be searched by the police or have your things searched if you don’t consent.