AFRA Research- All about Miranda
The Miranda Card that Policemen are REQUIRED to read to you upon QUESTIONING
August 21, 2008 NEW CASELAW
Case Name: U.S. v. Craighead, District: 9 Cir , Case #: 07-1-135
Opinion Date: 8/21/2008 , DAR #: 13245
Interrogations occurring inside the home are custodial, requiring Miranda advisements under the Fifth Amendment, if the circumstances turn it into one of a “police-dominated” atmosphere.
As soon as you DEMAND your Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights, CPS will very likely turn it into a “police-dominated” atmosphere. If they brought a cop along, it ALREADY IS a “police-dominated” atmosphere. The police commonly threaten the charge of “interfering with an investigation”. The catch is, if there is NO CRIME, there is NO Police investigation. The CPS is there to coerce you to “volunteer” away your (and your children’s) Constitutional Rights. The moment you “volunteer”, you have surrendered your Constitutional Rights. This is what the Miranda Warning is for, and why you had best just SHUT UP. What you say WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. See What happens in the FOG :: CPS Guts Constitutional Due Process
See The Brochure!
NAMI- Dealing with the Criminal Justice System
PBS Jim Lehrer- June 6, 2000
NOLO- Key Aspects of Modern Criminal Procedure: Defendant’s Rights
US Constitution Online
The Miranda Warning
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police’s position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person’s fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Beyond Miranda
In the time since the Miranda was decided in 1966, the Supreme Court has decided several cases directly related to the issues in the Miranda case. Below are brief descriptions of the issues presented to the justices in several of these cases. How would you decide these cases if you were on the Supreme Court?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Miranda warning? A Miranda warning advises people of their constitutional right not to answer questions or to have an attorney present before answer any questions.
Must a police officer always advise a person of their Miranda rights before asking a question?
No. The Miranda warning is only in effect during a “custodial interrogation.” This means that the person being questioned is in custody or in an environment in which the person does not believe that he is free to leave.
AFRA Editor Note- Ohhh, so that’s why the “Street Wise Punk” always asks “Am I under arrest?” And the cop says “No”. Then the Street Punk says “Go screw yourself copper. I ain’t talking to you!”
So we need to be “Street Smart” too, because these monsters are eating us alive in our
“Taking the 5th” is NOT just for courtroom drama TV!
Nor is it just for slime balls subpoenaed to appear before Congressional Hearings…
IT IS FOR YOU!
“When the people no longer read or understand their Constitution, then they will live in a POLICE STATE” –Robert Wangrud.
Know Your CONSTITUTIONAL Rights
June 26, 2000
ACLU of Southern California
Supreme Court Upholds Miranda Rights
Warding off attempts to chip away at the rights of suspects, on June 26 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision requiring officers to end interrogations when a suspect requests a lawyer or chooses to remain silent, and reversed a Fourth Circuit ruling that held that the famous 1966 Miranda ruling was no longer the law. Both decisions reinforce the rights of suspects under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In Butts v. McNally (previously known as California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts), the ACLU/SC filed suit on behalf of two suspects, one held by the LAPD and the other by the Santa Monica Police Department, who were questioned after repeatedly requesting to speak to an attorney.
Juvenile Confessions/Right Against Self-Incrimination
U.S. Supreme Court
Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Neither Fourteenth Amendment nor Bill of Rights is for adults alone. The privilege against self-incrimination protects juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court just as it protects adults. If counsel is not present, for some permissible reason, when admission is obtained from juvenile, greatest care must be taken to assure that admission was voluntary, in sense not only that it has not been coerced or suggested, but also that it is not product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair. Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1962). Confession state officers obtained from 14-year-old boy, who had been held five days without officers sending for his parents or seeing that he had advice of lawyer or adult friend, and without their bringing him immediately before judge, was obtained in violation of due process,
KEEP YOUR SECRETS.com
POLICE INTERROGTIONS Introduction
If you have never been in a Police interrogation….then you have little idea of exactly how intimidating and traumatic they can be. Try remembering how you felt the first time a State Trooper pulled you over for speeding (or whatever) and walked up to you car window to ask for your Driver’s License. Chances are your stomach and chest felt tight, your breathing was shallow, your voice tight and nervous. If you knew you were speeding you feared the consequences, and even you weren’t speeding…you still felt nervous and upset. If you multiply this by about 10-20 times…you have an idea what a full fledged Police Interrogation feels like.
Alabama State Bar
What are my rights? (pdf)
Excellent article regarding whether you are in “custody” or feel free to leave!
The Rights of Citizens in the Criminal Justice Process
The criminal justice process is the process by which crimes are investigated, charged, tried, and punished. Because the criminal justice system involves actions by the government against its citizens, the criminal justice process has been the subject of constitutional protections dating back, in the English common law system, to the Magna Carta.
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Safe Schools Legal Resource Manual
QUESTIONING OF JUVENILES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
The following sections pertain to the questioning of juveniles suspected of committing school rule violations and/or crimes. They briefly summarize the relevant legal standards.
Law enforcement officers will quickly recognize that the professional standards normally governing criminal investigation and interrogation of adults also apply in situations involving juveniles. However, officers should expect courts to scrutinize the investigative and interview techniques used to obtain information from juveniles closely.
Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2001
Miranda Rights? You Have Got to Be Kidding Me!
Johnny Taliban has a lawyer, paid for by Johnny Taliban’s father, of course. Now the lawyer is starting the public relations campaign on behalf of his little terrorist client. We’re now hearing his concerns that his client has been interrogated by U.S. officials without having been read his Miranda rights.
August 29, 2001
Miranda rights: Do kids get it?
By Marie McCain
The Cincinnati Enquirer
A police officer sits down with a 13-year-old child accused of a serious crime. “You have the right to remain silent,” he begins. “You have the right to an attorney, even if you can’t afford one…” Adults are expected to understand their Miranda rights. In Ohio and Kentucky, so are juveniles. But do they?
Miranda Rights for Florida Voters (comedy- or is it really?)
Prior to voting, this warning must be read to every Democrat voter
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
– Quarterly Review –
July 6, 2000 Vol. 1, Edition 4
THE NEWEST CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT – THE RIGHT TO MIRANDA WARNINGS
Senior Legal Instructor
Until June 26, 2000, a person who was in custody and being subjected to police interrogation did not have a Constitutional right to be given Miranda warnings; Miranda warnings were just the mechanism by which a state or Federal law enforcement officer ensured that the subject of his custodial interrogation knew what his or her rights were before the interrogation began. If a law enforcement officer conducted a custodial interview without first giving Miranda warnings, it was not a Constitutional violation, and so the worst that could happen was the suppression of the improperly obtained statement. Today, because a person in custody has a Constitutional right to be given his Miranda rights, is it possible, even likely, that failure to give a subject Miranda rights will serve as the basis for a Bivens or Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 civil rights claim?
Read the rest of this story
Here’s the FIRST ONE!
June 17, 2002- Father Sues Court Officials in Federal Court for Kidnapping Son
Edward S. (Zed) McLarnon has filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston against several judges, court clerks and other court officials, claiming they have violated his due process rights as guaranteed under the U. S. Constitution. Attorney is Greg Hession.
American Family Rights Association vows to help this case turn into a LANDSLIDE across America!
Intentional Violations of Miranda: A Strategy for Liability
By Kimberly A. Crawford, J.D.
Intentional Miranda violations may jeopardize cases and expose investigators and agencies to civil suits.
Law.com New Jersey
May 23, 2000
New Jersey Law Journal
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Failure To Read Miranda Rights Leads To Reversal of Officer’s Sex Conviction
Concluding that the Union County, N.J., Prosecutor’s Office violated a policeman’s rights by deliberately failing to issue a Miranda warning before questioning him, a New Jersey appeals court has reversed his sexual assault conviction.
About.com Crime and Punishment
Miranda On Trial Dateline: 12/07/99
APA Monitor on Psychology
Supreme Court revisits Miranda warnings
BY MELISSA RUSSANO AND MARGARET BULL KOVERA, PHD
Florida International University
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review whether issuing Miranda warnings to criminal suspects is constitutionally required–a review that could raise empirical questions of interest to research psychologists.
Monday, November 8, 1999
Federal Appeals Court Says Police Interrogation Tactics Violated “Miranda” Rights
Colorado State Patrol
MIRANDA OVERRULED? — A STUNNING COURT DECISION
By Charles A. Riccio Jr.
As a result of a decision from a federal circuit court of appeals, the 33-year old Miranda rule may be on its way to the dustbin!
March 30, 1999
Calhoun County Courts
Calhoun County, Michigan
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION – MIRANDA WARNINGS – WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS – PROBABLE CAUSE TO BIND OVER FOR TRIAL – DESIGNATED PROCEEDINGS
(by Tobin Miller, Research Attorney, MJI)
In the Matter of Nathaniel Jamar Abraham, Minor; People v Nathaniel Jamar Abraham, __ Mich App __ (1999), #212099,
Citizens for Police Review
CPR-Rights and Responsibilities
“Silence is golden!”
Be careful what you say to a police. What you say CAN and WILL be used against you.
October 8, 1998
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. GERALD GOTSCH
September 24, 1998
Kiss those Miranda rights good-bye
By Beverly Gage
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Criminal Resource Manual 50
Statements Taken From Juveniles
Bureau of Private Investigation
Hawaii Civil Rights Investigations
The usual issue for investigation is whether the action taken against a person violates any constitutional limitation that protects individual rights.
The most widely used Act for civil rights violations for victims of racial or religious discrimination is the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 which provides that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities served by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
WHAT IF I AM AT SCHOOL AND A SCHOOL OFFICIAL OR TEACHER WANTS TO QUESTION ME ABOUT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. DO THEY HAVE TO ADVISE ME OF MY MIRANDA RIGHTS?
No. The higher courts have ruled that school officials, teachers, and counselors do not have to advise you of your Miranda rights before questioning unless they are doing so at the direction of the police.
The Sixth Amendment
In American society today, you mainly hear about Amendments one, two, and five (the Freedom of the People, the Right to Bear Arms, and the Right to not Incriminate Oneself, respectively). This leaves the other Amendments far from people’s minds. What about the 13th Amendment, keeping people from having slaves? What about the Repeal of Prohibition, giving people the right to drink freely? But one of the most ignored Amendments is the sixth, giving rights to people accused of crimes. Well, this poor Amendment is not forgotten completely