"THEY NEVER READ ME MY RIGHTS!!!!"
By Brandon R. Ceglian
Most everyone has seen Hollywood's portrayal of the arrest of a defendant. As the police officer slaps on the handcuffs he begins those famous words, "You have the right to remain silent, anything your say or do may be used against you in a court of law." The understanding of many people is that if the police don't read these rights the Defendant is able to "get-off" the charges on a technically. Not necessarily so. In fact, this is one of the most misunderstood beliefs of criminal law that is perpetuated by Hollywood.
The case that instituted the requirement for law enforcement to read the alleged criminal a list of certain rights is Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The United States Supreme Court held in Miranda, and in cases that followed, that any statements or evidence seized as a result of information obtained from an arrestee, before he was advised of his Miranda rights, are inadmissible in a court action against the defendant. The Court listed the advisement of rights that the defendant must be clearly informed of, they are:
the right to remain silent, and that anything said can be used against you in a court of law;
the right to have an attorney represent you; and
the right to have an attorney appointed to you, if you cannot afford one.
A Miranda advisement is not required to be given to the person until he is told he is under formal arrest or when a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave. However, there is no requirement that the Miranda advisement be given at all, and no general penalty for negligently failing to give it. For example, if a person voluntarily enters a police station and confesses to a murder, at that point it would make little difference whether or not the Miranda advisement was given. However, if the person was then put under arrest and the police failed to give him the Miranda advisement, any additional statements by the arrestee-defendant could not be used against him later in court. So, for example, if the same defendant was arrested after his confession, and then told the police where to find the weapon, his post-arrest statement could not be used against the defendant in court. Furthermore, the evidence of the weapon could not be admitted as evidence if the law enforcement only found it because of the post-arrest statement. The first confession, however, was voluntary and is admissible. As such, the first confession might be enough evidence for a jury to convict.
There are situations where a defendant would "get-off" for failure to provide a Miranda advisement. For example, suppose a person is pulled over in his car for swerving. The officer has no reason to suspect that the driver is intoxicated, but asks the driver to perform roadside sobriety tests anyway. The driver refuses and the officer arrests him for Driving While Intoxicated ("DUI"). The officer takes the driver to his car and then asks the driver if he had been drinking. The driver admits, "Yes, I am very drunk." In this situation, if the officer did not advise the driver-arrestee of his Miranda rights, the state would have a very difficult case to prove. Even though the driver admitted to being drunk, that statement could not be used against him in a court of law. The driver was never told he has the right to remain silent, and so the court is required to presume that the driver did not know he had that right. This rule applies to everyone even if they already know their rights, for example a lawyer, a judge, a law enforcement officer, or a repeat offender criminal who has been through the advisement before.
The process of suppressing statements in a court case is not automatic. It is a complex process and generally requires the assistance of an attorney to file the appropriate motions at the appropriate time and to argue the motion before the Court.
Copyright, August 28, 2007
Brandon R. Ceglian
