police procedural mistakes

Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
148
Reaction score
8
Location
Ft. Worth, Tx
As I stated upstream, MIRANDA rights are grossly misunderstood by many people.
Jim Clark-Dawe

Ok, maybe I misunderstood my attorney at the time. I do believe he had said my DWI arrest would have been inadmissible if they had failed to read me my Miranda rights.

Thanks for the clarification!
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I've had many clients that were never read their MIRANDA rights. Then again, they weren't questioned. Not much value in questioning someone when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

As I stated upstream, MIRANDA rights are grossly misunderstood by many people.
Ain't that the truth.

Back when I was a cop, I almost lost a dui case because several jurors felt the driver's "constitutional rights" had been violated, since I'd never advised her of her Miranda rights.

Of course, I had never questioned her. No need -- she had pulled out of a 7-11, burnt rubber, spun out, did a 360, and skidded across the street into a closed gas station where another officer and I were talking, almost hitting our marked patrol cars.

A field sobriety test was not administered, due to her inability to stand upright after getting out of her car. (Or, "exiting her vehicle" in cop talk) You could smell the liquor on her from 10 feet away.

She could, ( and did) however, speak -- spewing out a constant monologue of profanity during the short trip to jail.

But still -- in some jurors' minds, no Miranda warning meant she should go free.
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
There's one thing I don't understand about the Miranda rights. (Apart from the obvious - that it is a named after a rapist whose name should be a stain on society rather than something that it is proud of)

---

Here's what I don't understand.

Imagine that I was arrested for DUI.

As you mentioned, I'm under arrest but not Mirandarized yet.

I then say "I murdered a prostitute and you'll find her body buried in the woods behind my house."

I'm then Mirandarized and I say no more.

The police search and find the body exactly were I said it was. There is ample DNA evidence on the body to link it to me.

There was nothing inevitable about the discovery - the body might never have been discovered if I hadn't drunkedly announced where it was. (Even if it was discovered in 10 years time - the DNA evidence certainly wouldn't have survived that long)

So can the police use *ANY* of that evidence in court against me? I assume that my confession is out .. but what about the DNA? The existence of the body behind the house?

Mac
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
There's one thing I don't understand about the Miranda rights. (Apart from the obvious - that it is a named after a rapist whose name should be a stain on society rather than something that it is proud of)

---

Here's what I don't understand.

Imagine that I was arrested for DUI.

As you mentioned, I'm under arrest but not Mirandarized yet.

I then say "I murdered a prostitute and you'll find her body buried in the woods behind my house."

I'm then Mirandarized and I say no more.

The police search and find the body exactly were I said it was. There is ample DNA evidence on the body to link it to me.

There was nothing inevitable about the discovery - the body might never have been discovered if I hadn't drunkedly announced where it was. (Even if it was discovered in 10 years time - the DNA evidence certainly wouldn't have survived that long)

So can the police use *ANY* of that evidence in court against me? I assume that my confession is out .. but what about the DNA? The existence of the body behind the house?

Mac
The Miranda decision resulted from an attempt to stop coercive questioning -- including physical force, btw.

But your example is what is known as a spontaneous statement. It's been freely volunteered and did not result from any questioning. So it's an exception to the Miranda rule and both your statement and all evidence stemming from it could be used at trial.

There are gray areas. There was a case few years back where the police had a suspect in the back of a car, taking him to the station. They didn't ask him any questions, but instead talked among themselves about how cold it was out, and how the body of the murder victim (a child iirc) was lying in the dark, and how his family was grieving.

The suspect told the cops where to find the body. The question was, was that a form of questioning. Trickery, to be sure, intended to get him to confess, but was it allowable under Miranda?

I think the courts (maybe even the SCOTUS) ruled that it was, but I can't for the life of me remember for sure. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
 

Mac H.

Board Visitor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,812
Reaction score
406
It's been freely volunteered and did not result from any questioning. So it's an exception to the Miranda rule and both your statement and all evidence stemming from it could be used at trial.

There are gray areas.
Hmm .. What if it was prompted by a question?

eg: When pulled over for drink driving?

"Been drinking tonight, Sir?"
"No - just murdered someone ... buried 'im in the backyard."

It's definitely a response to the question. Maybe a bit of a spontaneous confession, I'll admit ... but it would be an interesting episode of Boston Legal to see it argued as an answer to the question....

Thanks,

Mac
 

jclarkdawe

Feeling lucky, Query?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,297
Reaction score
3,859
Location
New Hampshire
There's one thing I don't understand about the Miranda rights. You need to understand that once you move beyond the broad category of it applying to custodial questioning (and there's a whole big question of what does "custody" mean) as to exactly what it means. (Apart from the obvious - that it is a named after a rapist whose name should be a stain on society rather than something that it is proud of) Attorneys call cased by their names, such as WADE V. ROE. State v. Defendant aren't worth mentioning the State part of the name, so they're known by the defendant. It's not a big deal and just to make life easy.

Miranda did get a new trial as the result of this issue, but when he went to trial again without the confession, he was again convicted, sentenced to 20 - 30 and released after 11. Before his 40th birthday, he was bleeding his guts out in a barroom ball and was DOA at the hospital. So Miranda won the issue, but lost the war, and then kept on being a loser.

---

Here's what I don't understand.

Imagine that I was arrested for DUI. Which means you're in custody, and any questioning has to be proceeded by a MIRANDA warning.

As you mentioned, I'm under arrest but not Mirandarized yet.

I then say "I murdered a prostitute and you'll find her body buried in the woods behind my house." Spontaneous outburst, as Rugcat says, are not covered. You have to be being questioned.

I'm then Mirandarized and I say no more.

The police search and find the body exactly were I said it was. There is ample DNA evidence on the body to link it to me.

There was nothing inevitable about the discovery - the body might never have been discovered if I hadn't drunkedly announced where it was. (Even if it was discovered in 10 years time - the DNA evidence certainly wouldn't have survived that long)

So can the police use *ANY* of that evidence in court against me? I assume that my confession is out .. but what about the DNA? The existence of the body behind the house? If you weren't read your MIRANDA rights, and you were being questioned, everything that resulted from the questioning would be surpressed, as a result of it being the fruit of the posioned tree. This is a result of another line of court decisions where the courts realized that the only way they could punish the police for violated Constitutional rights was by refusing to let the police use evidence from unconstitutional searches. A bit harsh from society's point of view, but seems to be the only cure for the problem.

However, in the scenario you described, where you make a spontaneous outburst not in response to questioning, your statement would come in as evidence, as well as everything that the police developed as evidence from the statement.

Mac

The Miranda decision resulted from an attempt to stop coercive questioning -- including physical force, btw. Even without intending to, police questioning is frequently coercive before of the power situation. But Chicago has just been caught short for rubber hose use, and questioning that goes on for hours is still common place. MIRANDA is an attempt to balance out the power issue.

But your example is what is known as a spontaneous statement. It's been freely volunteered and did not result from any questioning. So it's an exception to the Miranda rule and both your statement and all evidence stemming from it could be used at trial.

There are gray areas. Big, big gray areas. There was a case few years back where the police had a suspect in the back of a car, taking him to the station. They didn't ask him any questions, but instead talked among themselves about how cold it was out, and how the body of the murder victim (a child iirc) was lying in the dark, and how his family was grieving.

The suspect told the cops where to find the body. The question was, was that a form of questioning. Trickery, to be sure, intended to get him to confess, but was it allowable under Miranda?

I think the courts (maybe even the SCOTUS) ruled that it was, but I can't for the life of me remember for sure. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. I remember the case, but we don't use it in New Hampshire. (NH's Constitution is better in this area then the Federal Constitution so we rely on cases within the State for this issue.) I think it was allowed.

One case involving the police putting a colander of the suspect's head and running a piece of string to a copying machine. When the button on the copying machine was pressed, the word "LIAR!" came popping out. Guy thought he was connected to a lie detector machine and eventually confessed. If I remember right, the trial court allowed it, but it was eventually thrown out.

Police are a lot smarter and are creative. Criminals, especially career criminals, are not. Again, the courts are trying to even the playing field a bit.

But you need to understand that if you're in a small room, being questioned for hours, your desire to fit in and cooperate will likely kick in. People have confessed to things they haven't done as a result.

Hmm .. What if it was prompted by a question?

eg: When pulled over for drink driving?

"Been drinking tonight, Sir?"
"No - just murdered someone ... buried 'im in the backyard." If you had had your MIRANDA warnings read to you and you asserted them (you have to assert them) or the police were questioning you without giving your MIRANDA rights, the courts would probably not allow this to come in or any evidence developed from it.

Clearly the question is designed to provide some evidence to secure a conviction in a criminal case.

It's definitely a response to the question. Maybe a bit of a spontaneous confession, I'll admit ... but it would be an interesting episode of Boston Legal to see it argued as an answer to the question.... It is an answer to the question, just not the answer or subject matter that the questioner expected.

Thanks,

Mac

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe
 

Al Stevens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
214
One case involving the police putting a colander of the suspect's head and running a piece of string to a copying machine. When the button on the copying machine was pressed, the word "LIAR!" came popping out. Guy thought he was connected to a lie detector machine and eventually confessed. If I remember right, the trial court allowed it, but it was eventually thrown out.

David Simon uses this story in "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets," 1991. The TV show based on the book also used the story, I think in the first episode.

Simon identifies the practice as having been in use for a long time and recalls a recent case in Detroit when cops were called on the carpet for using it.

 

Al Stevens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
214
There is somewhere an online narrative and video about how a guy routinely beats speeding tickets in court. Among other things he claims to have done is refuse to assert his Miranda rights when they are read. When asked if he understands them, he simply says, "No."

I'm not sure how that is any more helpful than just refusing to answer questions, though. Other than to piss off the cops.
 
Last edited:

jclarkdawe

Feeling lucky, Query?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,297
Reaction score
3,859
Location
New Hampshire
There is somewhere an online narrative and video about how a guy routinely beats speeding tickets in court. Among other things he claims to have done is refuse to assert his Miranda rights when they are read. When asked if he understands them, he simply says, "No."

I'm not sure how that is any more helpful than just refusing to answer questions, thought. Other than to piss off the cops.

I'm not sure how exactly this works with a speeding ticket, since they don't usually give a MIRANDA warning for them, but the theory here is real simple. Is the speeding ticket worth the effort to the officer? If not, he shrugs, gives you a warning and let's you go. More likely then not, that's what's going to happen.

But if the officer decides it's worth the effort, he places you in custody, does a cuff and stuff, and gives you a ride down to the police station. At the station, the police determine whether you have a language problem, or are just dumb. Depending upon how entertained they are with you, they can keep this going for hours, until you say you understand your rights. At this point they let you go, although if they can think of other things to provide you with entertainment, they will such as requiring you to appear in court and/or additional charges.

Meanwhile, your car receives an inventory search and goes on the back of a tow truck for a trip to the impound lot. So you're out a towing bill, impound lot fee, taxi ride to the impound lot, and as much time as you want to waste.

Depends upon the cop's mood. So the question is how lucky do you feel?

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe
 

Al Stevens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
214
It was an amusing, although lengthy video. A lot of his other stuff didn't wash, either. I think he was selling a how-to. Been a while.
 

Rowan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,638
Reaction score
1,140
Location
In the red zone
Most crime drama TV shows mess up big time when it comes to the portrayal of federal agents and federal LE agencies (regardless of agency). I'm sure they do so in order to make the plot/premise work but it's still incredibly annoying. ;)
 

jeseymour

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
127
Age
61
Location
seacoast New Hampshire
Website
jeseymour.com
Most crime drama TV shows mess up big time when it comes to the portrayal of federal agents and federal LE agencies (regardless of agency). I'm sure they do so in order to make the plot/premise work but it's still incredibly annoying. ;)

Sorry, I don't have anything to add but had to jump in and say hi to Rowan! :Hug2:
 

Westie

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
22
Location
North of the 49th
I'll jump in with a huge pet peeve - when the police on TV run around with their guns clasped up near their heads and point the muzzles straight up. Drives me insane!

One of the cardinal gun handling safety rules is to control your muzzle direction at all times. If your muzzle is pointing straight up and you trip, you will automatically bring your hands down to catch or steady yourself, which will bring your muzzle right across the back of whomever is standing in front of you.

Oh, and one more thing...while pointing the gun straight up, they usually have their finger on the trigger, which is another rule breaker. Do not put your finger on the trigger/inside the trigger guard until you have made a decision to shoot.

Arg....so frustrating....