Does it make sense for a person t have their Miranda rights read in any case of being put under arrest?
545462
The requirement of the reading of the Miranda rights is just a crutch because most American are too lazy to know what their rights are. Most Americans aren't knowledgeable enough about their basic Constitutional rights to know what their rights are when they are arrested. It's pretty sad.\n\nedit\n\nThe Miranda rights ARE Constitutional rights based on the 5th Amendment - "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", thus the "right to remain silent". \n\nThe "right to an attorney" comes from the 6th amendment - "... and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "\n\ngailforce_wind went into good detail about the case where it all started.
548210
I would bet good money that you've watched enough TV to be able to recite the Miranda warning verbatim. Correct?\n\nThen you already know your rights, don't you? If you know you should have been advised of your rights, it means you knew you had them.
905204
It would be important to know if you're talking about an adult or juvenile arrestee.  In my state, I'm required to provide a Miranda admonition to a juvenile immediately upon arrest, whether or not I intend to question them.  Florida may have a similar law.\n\nFlorida may also have some specific state law that deals with this issue, though I would not think so.  Constitutionally, you are only required to be "Mirandized" if you are in custody or the functional equivalent thereof, and if you are being questioned about the crime you were arrested for.  \n\nYour question leaves out other possible options.  For instance, handcuffs may have nothing to do with a Miranda admonishment, or they may have everything to do with it.  And if you are not in custody, Miranda does not come into play before or during questioning of any kind.  \n\nAnd the "all of the above" thing doesn't make much sense in light of the first two possible answers...it would suggest that I'd have to read an admonition to you before I put the handcuffs on you and after I put them on...twice in the space of less than 15 seconds.  \n\nBeing told what you're "charged with" (and really, you should say "arrested for" as the police make arrests and the prosecutors charge defendants) has nothing to do with Miranda.   In my state, I'm supposed to tell you what I'm arresting you for unless it's obvious under the circumstances.  There is no specific direction as to when I'm supposed to tell you and I doubt there is in Florida, either.\n\nIf "they" won't tell you your rights or why you've been arrested for 30 minutes, I'd say it means nothing more than they didn't tell you your rights or what you were arrested for, for 30 minutes.  It's always been possible to be arrested and sent to court without hearing a Miranda admonition from the police because, in the absence of a state law requiring it, Miranda does not come into play unless you are being questioned about the crime you were arrested for.  No point in reading it to you if you're not going to be questioned.
863995
The householder is required by law to provide this information.  In theory you could be sent to prison until you do.  However, about 10% of the population don't bother and there's not enough room for all of you.
119422
Probably not, but your question made me think - what if the police arrest a deaf-mute? Do the Miranda rights then have to apply to anything he signs?\n\n[Edit: And then I spotted your other question. D'oh!!]
80537
All of the above are right. In more detail, the US Supreme Court held that because the state (aka: police) can be coercive and overwhelming, it is too easy for them to pressure someone into a confession. This could potentially violate both the person's due process rights and their right to not say anything that would incriminate them (both 5th Amendment rights).\n\nTherefore, to balance the scales of justice, and to preserve the right to an attorney, people in custodial interrogation must be allowed to speak with an attorney if they ask. This ensures that the person being held by the police has someone there to help them and support them, and thus to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected. \n\nThe Court in Miranda v. Arizona found that because people may not know their rights, police are required to notify them of their rights before questioning, and must get a waiver of those rights before they can proceed.
103167
What you're forgetting is that tomorrow it could be you.  If you were accused of a crime, should we not give you any rights, just throw you straight in jail?  If you're just referring to people who have been convicted, which rights do you mean?  They don't have many.  You do have to remember that unless they got the death penalty, they are going to return to society some day.  You don't prepare someone for that by putting them in a hole and telling they they're not a citizen anymore.
227271
Self-incrimination comes into play when you are in custody and subject to interrogation.  If you are in the back of a police car and are talking to yourself, it would be difficult to claim you were being interrogated.  \n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a partner in crime, whatever the two of you talk about is fair game...again, you are not being interrogated by the police.\n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a police informant who was put there just to listen to you talk (and did not question you), it's still all fair game because you're not being interrogated.\n\nLong story short: if you're blabbing to anyone (including yourself), without interrogation, you're almost certainly incriminating yourself and what you say is almost certainly going to be admissible at trial.\n\nDespite what others have said, just because you are arrested, handcuffed, and put into the back of a cop car, you may not have been "Mirandized"...I can't remember the last time I gave someone a Miranda admonishment just because I stuffed them into the back of my car after arresting them - and in my state, there is no requirement for me to do so.\n\nNote: some states have strange laws about who can record who and when.  While law enforcement might be guilty of violating one of those laws (though I can't imagine why they would), they are not about the Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.
645567
This area of law is very complex and the following is only basic guidance. The law states that,\n\nAny person can arrest a person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence or \nAnyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing such an offence, if \nit is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead and\nit is necessary to arrest the person for one of the below reasons,\nTo prevent the person in question,\n\ncausing physical injury to himself or any other person; \nsuffering physical injury; \ncausing loss of or damage to property; or \nmaking off before a constable can assume responsibility for him. \nThere a  few points to raise about the above paragraph.\n\nWhat is an indictable offence? \nHow do I know if I can make a citizens arrest? \n1. An indictable offence is an offence that can be tried at Crown Court. Below are examples of indictable offences which are the most likely to be encountered by members of the public,\n\ntheft \nburglary \ncriminal damage. \n2. You can make an arrest if the suspect is actually committing the offence or if you reasonably suspect them of committing it, or when the offence has been committed and you reasonably suspect them of having committed it. \n\nThere is no specific wording to use when making a citizens arrest. However you must inform the person you are arresting as soon as possible what you are doing, why you are doing it and what offence you believe the person has committed.\n\nThere are other considerations to make when making an arrest,\n\nreasonable force - see question in related information for details on reasonable force.\n\npotential for civil litigation - The courts are sympathetic to public spirited citizens and the exercise of their powers and rights. However, if you get it wrong you could be sued for unlawful arrest and/or false imprisonment. \nDo not make a citizens arrest if you feel that you would be putting yourself or any other person in danger, ring 999
1154686
Oh yeah ,its called freedom of speech .Also you have the same rights also (the arrestee)
116579
Only if there is a standing warrent issued by a judge.  Otherwise, SUE SUE SUE!!! :D
86383
Without going into great detail, if you listen they say "You have the RIGHT to remain silent"   It's just the that it's their right to not have to say anything.  And when you are being questioned you aren't always a criminal, remember you must be proven guilty, but you are first innocent.  At the time when they are questioning them they are suspects.   Also i'm sure if a suspect didn't want to talk, but was forced to do so, they would make up a lot of junk and waste the polic officers time anyways
266844
Miranda stems from a supreme court decision which states you, as an individual, have the right to an attorney during any questioning....Miranda was a person who was brought in for questioning, gave answers, then filed an appeal based on the fact that he didnt have representation and didnt know all the answers he gave would be used against him..
1121097
Let me further clear some things up.\n\nYes, you can place someone under citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor. In fact, that is how the police operate in most instances. Police in most states (including the one I work in) do not have the power to arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless it was committed in the officer's presence. (There are some exceptions to this, such as in domestic violence cases.)\n\nAn battery (most people call it assault) is a misdemeanor. Let's say someone hits you and you want to press charges. You call the police and they arrive. You tell them what happens and that you want to press charges. They will tell you that you have to place them under citizen's arrest. \n\nLet's make something clear: You DO NOT have to physically place them in handcuffs or anything like that. It simply means that you are taking the liability for any repercussions. The police usually have you sign a citizen's arrest form stating you will take the liability. The police then do the rest. \n\nHere is CA law on it:\n\nPenal Code 837 \n\nA private person may arrest another:\n   1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.\n   2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not\nin his presence.\n   3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable\ncause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
189191
There are alot of laws that give a police officer the power to arrest you. Those laws are mainly there for peolple that get out of control. It is up to the officer to decide if ones actions warrant arrest depending on the situation and that persons attitude. I was lighting fireworks with my kids the day after 4th of july because their cousins missed my fireworks show the night of the 4th. The police showed up, wanted to know why I was lighting fireworks and asked me to stop. Fireworks (at leat the ones I was shooting off) was illegal. I could have been arrested without them asking me for a explanation and certainly been arrested had I not complied.
219649
In the U.S., when you are arrested, the police must read you the Miranda warning before you can be questioned.  \n\nThough every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:\n\n"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements."\n\nFor equivalent laws in other countries see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Equivalent_rights_in_other_countries
858767
The answer to this question is a bit complex.  So, I will try to explain in two sections -\n\nFirst -  The Common Law\n\nIn the English tradition of Law, there is such a thing as the "common law."  The common law refers to laws that our system of law has assumed to be true since our Founding.\n\nFor example, there is no law that says you cannot steal or kidnap or assault or murder.  These are all parts of the common law.  The common law forbids each of these actions.  It has been this way since the beginning of our regime.\n\nJudges can rely on the common law to hand down their decisions.  In a case of theft, they simply know that theft is illegal under the common law.\n\nThere is a bit of a grey area within the common law though.  The common law must be applied to each case before a judge.  A judge may encounter a case where the common law has not been used before.  For example, before the internet was huge, what if a judge heard a case of a man stealing credit card numbers/identities online?  The judge could then use the common law and apply the criminality of theft in this case even though the common law had never been applied in this way before.\n\nThere isn't much grey area, but judges have the final say on when are where to apply the common law.\n\nSecond - Judicial Activism\n\nJudicial Activism refers to judges creating "laws" by their rulings from the bench.\n\nAn example of this are the Miranda rights I am sure all of you have heard of - "You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney, etc."  Basically, the things that police officers say when someone is brought into custody.  In a case before the Supreme Court, a criminal by the name of Miranda claimed that his civil rights were violated because he did not understand all of his rights when dealing the police when he was charged with his crime.  The Supreme Court agreed with him, and thus created a "law" whereby an officer making an arrest had to explicitly tell each criminal their rights when being taken into custody.\n\nThis sort of "law" does not come from the legislature but only from the ruling of the Supreme Court.  In essence, the Court created a new law.  The law has now become each person taken into custody must be explicitly told their rights.\n\nThe heart of your question is whether or not this sort of judicial behavior is right or wrong.\n\nThe long and the short of your answer is that judicial activism is wrong.\n\nI can prove this to you by a simple Platonic test.  Follow these questions and answer honestly, and you will see why.\n\nWhat does a farmer know how to do?  Plant and harvest crops.\n\nWhat does the captain of a ship know how to do?  Pilot a ship.\n\nWhat does a doctor know how to do?  Heal and preserve the body.\n\nWhat does a legislator know how to do?  Create laws.\n\nWhat does a judge know how to do?  See if a law has been broken.\n\nAt the core, each profession human beings have are directed toward a telos (Greek for "end").  If a profession acts out of its end, then foolishness occurs.\n\nWould you go to a farmer if your arm were broken?  No.\n\nWould you go to a doctor if you needed to pilot a ship?  No.\n\nWould you go to a doctor if you needed to plant a crop?  No.\n\nWould you go to a judge if you needed to create a law?  No.\n\nThe role and ultimate end of a judge is to interpret law and see if it were broken.\n\nThe art of creating law belongs to members of the legislator.\n\nAnyone who would disagree would visit a farmer if he or she was sick.