The misconception that an arrest is valid only if you are read your Miranda Rights at the time of arrest – NOT TRUE!
IN & OUT Bail Bonds understands this and that you are innocent until proven otherwise.
The exact wording of the“Miranda Rights”statement is not specified in the Supreme Court’s historic decision. Instead, law enforcement agencies have created a basic set of simple statements that can be read to accused persons prior to any questioning.
The Miranda rights do not protect you from being arrested, only from incriminating yourself during questioning.
All police need to legally arrest a person is “probable cause” – an adequate reason based on facts and events to believe the person has committed a crime.
Police are required to “Inform you of your Miranda rights,” only before interrogating you. While failure to do so may cause any subsequent statements to be thrown out of court, the arrest may still be legal and valid.
Also, without reading the Miranda rights, police are allowed to ask routine questions:
like name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number to establish a person’s identity. Police can also administer alcohol and drug tests without warning, but persons being tested may refuse to answer questions during the tests.
Here are paraphrased examples of the basic “Miranda Rights” statements, along with related excerpts from the Supreme Court’s decision.
1. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
Court: “At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.”
nbsp;
2. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.
Court: “The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.”
3. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT NOW AND DURING ANY FUTURE QUESTIONING.
Court: “…the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today. … [Accordingly] we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today.”
4. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, ONE WILL BE APPOINTED AT LITTLE OR NO COST TO YOU.
Court: “In order to fully apprise a person interrogated, of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to inform him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one.
The Court continues by declaring what the police must do if the person being interrogated indicates that he or she does want a lawyer…
If the person states that they want an attorney the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.”