While the wording of the Miranda warning does not need to be exact, and requires no specific or special form, the information about your Miranda rights, when given, must be complete. Therefore, the judge will be required to exclude from the criminal case any and all damaging information the person gave to the officer after police gave him that incomplete warning.
Serious Police Error 3. The police informed you of your Miranda rights in a way that was not accurate. When telling you about your Miranda rights, police cannot, whether intentionally or accidentally, add to, or subtract from, the rights in a way that alters, distorts, or otherwise changes them. In making such statements, the police themselves are violating the law, and any statements you make to police under such circumstances must be disqualified by the judge and excluded from the case.
Serious Police Error 4. The police informed you of your Miranda rights in a way that was not understandable. Similarly, if the police stop or arrest a juvenile, or a person who is of low intelligence, or a person who is hard of hearing, police must inform the person of his Miranda rights in a way that the person can understand. Serious Police Error 5. The police inform you of your Miranda rights, but fail to obtain an indication.
After informing you of your Miranda rights, police are required by the law to obtain a clear indication from you that you understand them before proceeding to question you. If the police inform a person of his Miranda rights, and in response, the person is silent, the police are also prohibited from interpreting that silence as consent to begin questioning the person. Therefore, it is critically important for you to work with your lawyer so that he or she can first, thoroughly collect all of the relevant facts, and then, applying the relevant law, present those facts effectively to the judge.
No, not necessarily. The officer is not the one who charges people with crimes. Police lie to defendants all the time to get confessions and guess what? It is legal for cops to lie. As you might imagine, in court, when hearing conflicting statements from police and from a person accused of a crime, judges almost always believe the police.
This is very unfair because, contrary to arguments by the Government, police officers sometimes do indeed have a motive to lie. One reason an officer might lie about having forgotten to inform a person of his right to remain silent is that admitting to such a mistake could cause him to lose his job. Another reason is that human beings instinctively do not like to admit they have made mistakes, especially when the admission must take place formally and officially in a public place, like a courtroom.
And these reasons become even stronger if the officer has a record in his work history of having made the same, similar, or other mistakes.
Your lawyer can research the history of the officers who arrested you, usually without too much difficulty. Even though most judges believe the testimony of police officers over private citizens, there are several ways a lawyer can sometimes show a judge that a police officer failed to properly inform a person of his right to remain silent, or failed to obtain an indication from the person that he understood the information provided.
Miranda Rights During An Arrest
It is during such depositions that a lawyer, through careful and thorough questioning, may discover that the police made the serious mistake of failing, in whole or in part, to inform the person arrested of his right to remain silent, or failed to obtain an adequate indication that the person understood the information. A third way is through cross-examination of the officer in court before a judge, at trial, or sometimes before a trial is even scheduled. By knowing the important facts and the relevant law, and by skillful questioning of the officer, the lawyer may be able to show the judge that the officer, required to answer questions under oath, failed to follow the law as it relates to Miranda rights.
Many people who are arrested make the mistake of believing that if police did not inform them of their right to remain silent, their cases must be thrown out of court, or that they will win their case automatically.
Miranda warning - Wikipedia
A fail to inform the person of his Miranda rights; OR. B inform the person of his Miranda rights improperly or incompletely; OR. C the police fail to obtain a clear indication from the person that he understood the information; OR. All three events, 1 through 3 , must occur before the failure by police to inform a person of his Miranda rights can help the person win a criminal case being prosecuted against him. If the damaging information cannot be admitted in the case, the Government may conclude, as it often does under such circumstances, that it cannot prove the person is guilty of the crime originally charged.
When that happens, the Government commonly drops the case, either by filing a document formally stating the case has been dropped, or announcing in open court that the case has been dropped. If the Government was not prohibited by the law, the Government would, in every criminal case, argue to judges and juries alike that, if a person is innocent, he or she would always want to talk to police, not hide the truth behind silence. This rule of law applies as long as the person did not, at the time of his silence, specifically state he wanted to be silent because of his right to do so as allowed by the Fifth Amendment.
In state court in Florida, a prosecutor is not allowed to say anything, or present any evidence, that suggests a person was silent, whether a before being arrested, or b at the time he was arrested, or c after he was arrested, or d before being advised of his Miranda rights, or e anytime thereafter.
The only exception in state court, and its occurrence is rare, is when two unusual things happen: 1 a person accused of a crime decides to testify in his own defense at trial, and then 2 he says something that is inconsistent in a direct or material, significant way with his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. Under such circumstances, the Government is allowed to try to discredit the person by asking him about his previous silence.
The police are free to ask people questions on the street, in their homes, or even at the police station, as long as those people freely agree to engage in such conversation. So if you say something to police when you are really free to go about your business, the law of Miranda rights does not protect you. Your right to remain silent, and your right to consult with a lawyer before or during questioning only begin when the police stop you, whether directly or indirectly, from going about your business.
But police asking a person questions in the street, or to come down to the station to talk or make a statement, is not a stop or detention. According to the law, because the person is free to say no, or to walk away, Miranda rights do not protect him or her under such circumstances. The rule to follow then is a simple one: Never talk to police until you have consulted with a lawyer. Judges of the United States Supreme Court, and of the Florida Supreme Court, have ruled that prosecutors are prohibited, except rarely, under certain special circumstances from saying anything that would allow a jury, directly or indirectly, to know the person on trial chose to exercise his right to remain silent.
But why is this so? An innocent person might also be silent because he distrusts the police, or fears retaliation from those responsible for the crime, or because a lawyer once told him never to talk to police before consulting with the lawyer. In fact, there are many other reasons why a person may be silent in response to police questioning other than guilt.
But fearing members of jury will wrongly jump to the conclusion that the defendant was silent because he is guilty, the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court prohibit prosecutors from informing the jury, directly or indirectly, that, in response to police questioning, the defendant chose to exercise his right to remain silent. It is important to keep in mind that not everyone who is arrested is guilty. But even when a person is guilty of failing to follow the law, sometimes the police are more guilty of not following the law.
And if that happens, who do you think should win the case? But the law is so complicated, it is often impossible for a non-lawyer to understand it without having both 1 studied the subject an intensive three-year course of study in law school as well as 2 having acquired actual experience representing clients and trying cases. In fact, the language of the law, and interpretation by judges of what the law means, are to most non-lawyers incomprehensible.
One thing that is clear is that the law rarely follows the rules of logic and reason as these concepts are understood in the world outside the courtroom. As a side note, I practice karate and Brazilian jiu jitsu. It helps the mind as well as the body.
Smith, was suspended. When stopping Mr.
Smith, the police smell the odor of marijuana. Searching the car in a way that the law allows, the police discover marijuana hidden in the vehicle. Smith was not a lawful one. Smith, a woman, the police did not thereby establish a legal basis to stop Mr. John Smith, obviously a man. In other words, the police were able to see that the driver of the car was a man so that it was unreasonable for police to conclude that he was Mrs.
Smith, the female owner of the car. Moreover, the suspension of Mrs. Based on these facts, the stop of Mr. Smith was unlawful, and therefore, the evidence the police obtained as a result of the stop, here, the marijuana, was illegally obtained. Therefore, the judge must rule, because the original stop was illegal , that the marijuana cannot be admitted into the case. As a consequence, the Government, having no other evidence against Mr.
Know Your Rights: What are Miranda Rights?
Smith, will be forced to drop the case. But even if the license plate was traced, not to Mrs. Indeed, the fact that the car was owned by someone else serves to reinforce the suggestion that the marijuana could just as reasonably have belonged to someone else. If John was smart enough to invoke his right to remain silent, the police would have no evidence to prove the marijuana in the car belonged to him and not someone else.
Why, as Americans, do we have the right to remain silent? The United States Constitution is the document that the Founding Fathers adopted in order to define how the new government in America should operate. Having suffered under an oppressive British government in which all of the power was unfairly concentrated in the hands of a King, the Founding Fathers of this country decided that Americans could reduce the risk of such misconduct by its own new government if they divided the power of government into three branches.
Although hard to believe, before the American colonies of Great Britain became the independent United States of America, the King of England and his agents tortured people in horrible ways to force them to confess to crimes, including such offenses as opposing the policies of the King. So, when the Founding Fathers created this country, they envisioned a nation in which such torture could not take place.
In other words, it was the conscious wish of the Founding Fathers to take away from the government any power it might otherwise have to force people, under governmental pressure, to say negative or damaging things about themselves. In this way, because confessions or other damaging information obtained from a person by governmental force, or even the threat of force, becomes illegal, agents of the government can gain no legal advantage by torturing people.
So you incriminate yourself by saying something that, directly or indirectly, suggests or indicates you have committed a crime. Miranda rights protect a person from any action by police that might pressure a person, after being stopped, arrested, or held in custody by police, from incriminating himself. If your lawyer moves a court to suppress evidence in your case, the lawyer is asking a court to exclude the evidence because it was obtained in violation of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment is one of the laws that is listed in the Bill of Rights, a document that the Founding Fathers adopted to supplement, or more specifically, to amend the Constitution..
The Fourteenth Amendment is also one of the laws listed in the Bill of Rights. The rights included in the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee, among other things, that the laws of the states, including Florida, cannot nullify any of the laws of the federal government.
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment says the Fifth Amendment restricts not only agents of the federal government, but also agents of all fifty state governments. So agents of the state of Florida are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment from compelling a person, in a criminal case, to be a witness against himself. The Constitution is the document created and adopted by the Founding Fathers of the United States that describes how American government is constructed, specifically with three separate branches, the Executive Branch the president, his ministers, and agents , the Legislative Branch Senators and Representatives , and the Judicial Branch judges and the court system.
The Founding Fathers recognized that, when they adopted the Constitution, it was incomplete because it did not provide crucial rights that we, the people, must have if we are to live freely, and not be oppressed by the government. So after establishing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers later adopted the Bill of Rights, a list of rights that belong to the people of the United States, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and as interpreted in the Miranda case, the rights, when stopped and questioned by police, to be silent and to consult with a lawyer.
He has helped his clients by filing motions to suppress for Miranda violations to get their cases thrown out.
Private lawyer Can I get my money back from criminal lawyer, Florida attorney Florida concealed weapons permit statistics FL concealed weapons. How long does an Florida injury case take?