If you’ve ever watched any sort of crime drama on TV you may have this memorized. Law enforcement arrests a person, puts them in handcuffs, and reads them their rights – you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney before answering any questions; if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. But what happens if you have an encounter with law enforcement, or you are arrested, and they don’t read you your rights? Does that mean the case is dismissed? Did the police make a mistake? Can I use this to my advantage? Like most things in the law, the answer is not so cut-and-dry, and we rarely have a simple, yes or no answer.
The truth is that law enforcement does not always have to read someone their Miranda Rights. In fact, it seems like the situations where a person has to have their rights read to them are being watered down more and more. At this point, law enforcement needs to read you your rights (1) if you are detained and (2) you are being interrogated by law enforcement.
What does this mean? Under the law, a person is detained by law enforcement if a reasonable person in their situation would not feel they are free to leave. Often this means you are in handcuffs, but not always. I have had cases where I’ve argued that a person is detained by law enforcement turning on their emergency lights, blocking a person into a parking space, and even cases where a person is questioned without being handcuffed in vehicle by law enforcement based upon the questions they are being asked, the tone of the interaction, and the nature of the reason they were talking to the person. Being interrogated simply means that they are questioning you about a crime, or an alleged crime, that they believe you have information about or were somehow involved in. Think of it like this – if law enforcement is asking you questions that, depending on your answer, could get you or someone else in legal trouble you are being interrogated.
Lets walk through some of the more common questions I get when someone isn’t read their Miranda Rights. A person is stopped and investigated for a DUI, and that investigation ends in an arrest. Law enforcement tells you that you are being placed under arrest for a DUI (or, at least in North Dakota, they are required to), handcuff you, and drive you to the local jail without reading you your rights. What can be done about this? Honestly, not much. While you are detained, you are not being interrogated about a crime that they believe you committed. They are not asking you questions that can implicate you in a criminal act, they’ve already done their investigation at this point, so they are really just trying to get you to submit to tests as part of that investigation. I may not agree with this but that is what the courts have decided and we play by the rules we are given. However, an important note, before you submit to a chemical test at the jail or police department related to a DUI arrest you do have the right to call and consult with a lawyer.
In a second example, law enforcement arrives at a location to investigate something they were called about. You approach them and make a statement to them, and that statement ends up implicating you in a crime. Can it be suppressed? In all likelihood no, it cannot. If you voluntarily provide a statement to law enforcement without their asking you questions or seeking you out for questions you waive the right to later take that statement back. Just like you can voluntarily allow for a search of your home or vehicle, you can voluntarily give information to law enforcement.
Another common example I get questions about is what if law enforcement contacts a person they are investigating for a crime and requests that they come in for an interview. They are voluntarily going to give the interview, and they are not detained, so do they have to have their rights read to them? In this case the answer is yes. This is an interrogation, they are asking you questions that could result in your arrest or prosecution for a crime, and while not in handcuffs the argument is that you are detained because you went to the police department, you were aware they are investigating you for a crime, and they are likely starting to accuse you of something during the course of the interview. In this case, a reasonable person would not feel they are free to leave and they must read you your rights before conducting the interview.
Finally, lets take that same situation but instead of you going to law enforcement they come to you and want to talk to you at your home. They are asking questions in a very accusatory way, you are aware you are being investigated for a crime, but they have told you that you are not under arrest and are free to leave or stop the interview at any time. Do they have to read you your rights? In my experience, yes. I have argued this issue before in cases and have been able to do so successfully. It boils down to the fact that it was clearly an interrogation and a person who is being interrogated, even if told they are free to leave and not under arrest, having a reasonable belief that a person in their situation would not feel they are actually free to leave.
So, if law enforcement did make a mistake by not reading you your rights, what is the remedy for it? Generally speaking, the remedy is that anything you say to law enforcement during your interrogation can be suppressed, or kept out of evidence if your case were to go to trial. This means if you admitted to doing something wrong it can be determined that your admission cannot be used against you going forward. Now, the question with any motion to suppress is not always as easy as can it be suppressed, but a more nuanced question of do I want it to be suppressed? Maybe you denied everything in your statement, maybe you came off as credible in your interrogation, or maybe there is a lot of helpful information that you would want a jury to see at a trial. Whatever the reason, sometimes we have motions we can write but shouldn’t write. This is where an experience attorney comes into play. Having an experienced lawyer review your evidence and help you make this decision is invaluable and can make a huge difference in determining if you can write a motion to suppress and, more importantly, if you should write that motion. Getting a lawyer on your side as soon as possible is invaluable, and the sooner we can get to work on your case the better in most cases. So if you have been arrested and aren’t sure what to do with the evidence, call Curran Law Firm today and see what we can do to help you.
Disclaimer
Any blog published by Curran Law Firm, PLLC is available for information purposes only and is not considered legal advice on any subject discussed. By viewing this, or any other blog post, the reader understands that there has been no attorney-client relationship formed between the reader and Curran Law Firm, PLLC. Blog posts should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed attorney, and readers are urged to consult with an attorney on any specific legal questions they may have.