Miranda v. Arizona is a famous case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before a confession is admissible in court against a suspect, (1) the police must have informed the suspect that he has a right to counsel and to remain silent, and (2) that the suspect must have intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. However, this only applies to custodial interrogation.

In the context of a drunk driving arrest, there are really two sets of rights that should be read to a suspect by the police; the Miranda rights and the chemical test rights. The Miranda rights are the rights that most of us are familiar with, and address your right to speak with an attorney before questioning. A reading of the Miranda rights will include an affirmative statement by the police that what you say can be used against you in Court.

Perhaps. The police are only required to read you your "Miranda Rights" if you are actually “in custody” and are a suspect in the crime that they question you about. Failure to advise you of your rights does not automatically result in a dismissal of the charges or your statements being suppressed.

Failure to advise you of your Miranda rights does not automatically result in dismissal of the case against you. It is possible to get your statements thrown out in certain circumstances, but you should discuss the facts of your case fully with a knowledgeable and experienced criminal law attorney at Paul J. Tafelski, P.C. Contact us today.

Probably not. Not being properly advised of your Constitutional rights may have consequences that will impact the ultimate outcome of your case, but the mere fact that you were not properly advised does not mean your case is automatically dismissed. It is an issue that should be brought to the attention of your attorney so that appropriate legal remedies can be sought.

Usually, the answer is no. Police are only required to read you Miranda warnings if you are placed into custody and then questioned.

No. However, the state might be prevented from using any evidence collected after the failure to read you your "Miranda Warnings". It is important that you hire a good attorney that is knowledgeable about this area of the law.

Probably not. But if you were interrogated after being placed in custody, those statements cannot be used against you.

In a typical DUI stop most police officers are trained that they do not have to read these particular rights before they begin to question you regarding the events that lead up to the traffic stop. They are also trained to ask certain questions to elicit voluntary admissions of drinking or using recreational drugs.

The police have to read you your Miranda rights if they intend to question you after you are in custody. If they don't do that after your arrest and before questioning you, evidence the police obtained from your statements and the statements themselves might be excluded at trial. Although most DUI cases are based upon scientific evidence, such as a breath or blood test, a skilled DUI defense attorney can determine whether a motion to exclude evidence is warranted in your case.

The police are not required to read you your rights unless they want to talk to you once you are in custody. Everyone has heard of the "Miranda Rights." This phrase comes from the case of Miranda v. Arizona, where the United States Supreme Court stated that before a law enforcement officer can question a person who is in custody, they must tell them their rights.

WCCA is a mirror of the historical record in the Clerk of Court's office. As a historical record, it shows what has happened in every case filed. If a case is dismissed, or a person is found "not guilty" in a criminal case, that is part of the historical record and is disclosed in the records. See Question #1 for case retention information.

Outside of TV land, the police do not have to read you your rights. However, if they do not read you your rights after the arrest and before interrogation, then the statements you are said to have made could be precluded from being used against you at trial. But, if you testify and say something different than what you allegedly said in your prior statement, they can use the statement anyway. Many people do not realize that Mr. Miranda himself, was retried, convicted of murder, and sent to jail.

It depends. Generally, the government may not use any statements you made against you if you made those statements while in custody and in response to police questioning unless they first informed you of your rights. This issue must, however, be decided by a judge after evaluating the specific facts in your case. Additionally, the fact that you were not read your rights does not mean that the charges against you must be dismissed.

There is a common misconception that when an officer fails to read a person their Miranda Rights (i.e., "You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney. . .") the case will be dismissed. The Miranda warning only affect the admissibility of statements made by an accused after the person is arrested.

I received today a notice of entry of order re: discharge of my bankruptcy (Ch13) for failure to make timely payments. I have missed two payments and I'm in my fourth year of paying. All payments to the secured creditor and IRS have been made but payments were still being paid to unsecured creditors.

Most likely, no. As discussed above, reading your rights is not necessary for a lawful arrest. However, if you were "interrogated" (legal term with a legal definition) after being placed in "custody" (another legal term with a legal definition), your statements may not be admissible at your trial, which can lead to a dismissal of your case.