Miranda Rights...

[Looney]

Why is it that they must read you your Miranda Rights before they can question you... otherwise the statement cannot be used in court. But they're allowed to wire and eavesdrop on you without your consent, and that can be used in court?

 

[HiTek21]

Don't they need to get a warrant before they can do any wire tapping?

 

[Viper GTS]

It's to prevent coerced/pressured confessions and/or incrimination.

Viper GTS

 

[tweakmm]

I think your first mistake is trying to apply logic to our criminal justice system

 

[wfbberzerker]

in the 60's, what often happened was that police would coerce those they arrested into confessions, whether or not that person was guilty. in one case (fransisco miranda), he was found innocent because of the way in which the police interviewed him. so, now, police read the miranda rights so that someone that is arrested knows they can keep their yapper shut and they dont have to worry about a forced confession.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Why is it that they must read you your Miranda Rights before they can question you... otherwise the statement cannot be used in court. But they're allowed to wire and eavesdrop on you without your consent, and that can be used in court?

AFAIK, wiretapping requires probable cause and a warrant.

 

[Moemar]

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
in the 60's, what often happened was that police would coerce those they arrested into confessions, whether or not that person was guilty. in one case (fransisco miranda), he was found innocent because of the way in which the police interviewed him. so, now, police read the miranda rights so that someone that is arrested knows they can keep their yapper shut and they dont have to worry about a forced confession.

Just as clarification, Ernesto Miranda was mildly mentally retarded, and was coerced into confessing to a crime it was later found he was innocent of, thus the creation of Miranda rights.

 

[wfbberzerker]

Originally posted by: Moemar

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
in the 60's, what often happened was that police would coerce those they arrested into confessions, whether or not that person was guilty. in one case (fransisco miranda), he was found innocent because of the way in which the police interviewed him. so, now, police read the miranda rights so that someone that is arrested knows they can keep their yapper shut and they dont have to worry about a forced confession.

Just as clarification, Ernesto Miranda was mildly mentally retarded, and was coerced into confessing to a crime it was later found he was innocent of, thus the creation of Miranda rights.

heh, whoops, wrong first name.

 

[giguana]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Why is it that they must read you your Miranda Rights before they can question you... otherwise the statement cannot be used in court. But they're allowed to wire and eavesdrop on you without your consent, and that can be used in court?

AFAIK, wiretapping requires probable cause and a warrant.

that's true. they do have to have a warrant for wire tapping.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Why is it that they must read you your Miranda Rights before they can question you... otherwise the statement cannot be used in court. But they're allowed to wire and eavesdrop on you without your consent, and that can be used in court?

AFAIK, wiretapping requires probable cause and a warrant.

The Miranda rights were established not to protect an inherent right to privacy, for there is none: we were born naked. Rather, they were established to prevent inaccurate confessions coerced by "whoopsydaisy" nightstick tactics and gun-to-the-head cop-in-the-face fun. Under wiretap situations, the government is in no way coercing you. Edit: oh yeah, and I'd hope that you'd have to have at least probably cause to arrest someone. How can the police justifiably do anything without probable cause?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Miranda rights haven't stopped coercing confessions. Cops just have to take the time to say them before they commence the coercing now.

 

[minendo]

I received an arrest ticket (not actually brought to jail) and had no rights read to me. Not sure how the process actually works if you only receive an arrest ticket, but it was cheaper to pay the fines then to pay lawyer costs.

 

[Looney]

Like Gonad said, coercion still happens... it just happens off camera. I was certainly coerced in my situation.

For example, if i was arrested, and they haven't read my rights yet, and i started to blurting out some information that was incriminating during the ride down to the station... that wouldnt' be admissible in court. Yet if i was caught blurting out the same information and it was caught on a security camera in a store, that is admissible.

I received an arrest ticket (not actually brought to jail) and had no rights read to me. Not sure how the process actually works if you only receive an arrest ticket, but it was cheaper to pay the fines then to pay lawyer costs.

Well, they only read the rights when they're about to interrogate/question you. And unlike the movies, it doesn't happen on the spot... but down at the station (unless an officer here says otherwise... but from personal experience it's always been done at the station, and there's actually a form you have to sign).

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Like Gonad said, coercion still happens... it just happens off camera. I was certainly coerced in my situation.

For example, if i was arrested, and they haven't read my rights yet, and i started to blurting out some information that was incriminating during the ride down to the station... that wouldnt' be admissible in court. Yet if i was caught blurting out the same information and it was caught on a security camera in a store, that is admissible.

I received an arrest ticket (not actually brought to jail) and had no rights read to me. Not sure how the process actually works if you only receive an arrest ticket, but it was cheaper to pay the fines then to pay lawyer costs.

Well, they only read the rights when they're about to interrogate/question you. And unlike the movies, it doesn't happen on the spot... but down at the station (unless an officer here says otherwise... but from personal experience it's always been done at the station, and there's actually a form you have to sign).

If you are blurting things out, I'm sure they would read you your rights then so they could use it in court.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Why is it that they must read you your Miranda Rights before they can question you... otherwise the statement cannot be used in court. But they're allowed to wire and eavesdrop on you without your consent, and that can be used in court?

AFAIK, wiretapping requires probable cause and a warrant.

The Miranda rights were established not to protect an inherent right to privacy, for there is none: we were born naked. Rather, they were established to prevent inaccurate confessions coerced by "whoopsydaisy" nightstick tactics and gun-to-the-head cop-in-the-face fun. Under wiretap situations, the government is in no way coercing you. Edit: oh yeah, and I'd hope that you'd have to have at least probably cause to arrest someone. How can the police justifiably do anything without probable cause?

I thought miranda was an extension of the 5th amendment. A person has a right not to bear witness against himself, as well as the right to due process of law.

Wire taps, searches and seizures, arrest warrants, and the right to privacy are all stipulated in the 4th amendment. Privacy, as defined by the 4th amendment, extends to far more than what have on your person. It includes: "houses, papers, and effects," and is inherent to all lawful residents of the US of A.

At least this is what I got out of my US Gov. class in high school. I slept through most of it, so I may be wrong.

Bill of Rights
Amendments 1-10

 

[waynehead]

police only have to read you your miranda rights if:

1) you're in a custodial situation, which is any situation where a "reasonable" person wouldn't feel free to leave (in an interrogation room as opposed to on the side of a road after a traffic stop)

and

2) you're being questioned.

if either of those are missing, no miranda rights are needed. in regards to the blurting of things out, they can use that against you without reading you your rights. if they throw you in the back of a cop car and you start rambling about your crimes, they haven't questioned you so they're free to use that information.