This content was written for Cale Law Office

You see it on almost every cop show. A person is arrested and read his rights. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale talks about Miranda rights and when they apply. If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. It also get a free defense strategy plan tailored just for you and your case.

Miranda rights stem from a case called Miranda vs. Arizona. That case says that when a person is in custody, he must be told that he has a right to remain silent; that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to him. This case is based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides in part that no one can be compelled to be a witness against himself. This has been interpreted to mean a person cannot be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.

The Miranda warning does not need to be given word for word. Instead, it requires that all suspects be informed of the rights without considering any prior awareness of those rights. The warning will be sufficient as long as the substance of the warning is there. In one case, the US Supreme Court Court upheld a warning “that include the statement,” we have no way of giving you a lawyer but one will be appointed for you if you wish if and when you go to court. In another case, the court said that the failure to advise the suspect was right to court-appointed counsel can be harmless error. Also, there is generally no need to state the warning again because of a break in police interrogation unless the time-lapse has been so long that failure to do so would seem to be an attempt to take advantage of the suspects ignorance of his rights.

As stated before Miranda applies to when a person is in custody. Anyone in police custody and accused of a crime, no matter how minor, this be given Miranda warnings before questioning by the police. Miranda generally applies only to publicly paid police who are questioning a person. It doesn’t apply where the questioning is by an informant who was working for the police. So, the Miranda warnings would not need to be given before questioning by cellmate working secretly for the police. The rationale is that the warnings are intended to officer the coercive nature of police dominated interrogation, and that the defendant does not know he’s being interrogated by police, there is no coercive atmosphere to offset.

On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibits admission of evidence based on a psychiatric interview the defendant was not warned of his right to remain silent. However, the admission of such evidence may constitute harmless error in some cases. There are some limitations on the scope of Miranda. For example, had may not apply to a probation officer. In one US Supreme Court case there was an admission of a rape and murder by probationer to his probation officer. The court held that it was not compelled or involuntary despite the probationers obligation to periodically report and be truthful in all matters. In another case, the court held that Miranda does not apply to a witness testify before a grand jury even if the witness is under subpoena to appear to testify. The witness has not been charged or indicted does not have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. However he may consult with an attorney outside the grand jury room. And when disfigures false testimony for grand jury can be convicted of perjury even though he was not given Miranda warnings.

As mentioned, Miranda applies only when a person is in custody by law enforcement. Determining whether or not a person is in custody is a two-step process. The first step is sometimes called the freedom of movement test. It requires the court to determine whether a reasonable person others of the circumstances we feel that he was free to stop the interrogation and leave. All the circumstances surrounding the in police interrogation will be considered. If a person’s freedom of movement was curtailed in this way, the next step is to determine whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures is a type of stationhouse interrogation at issue in Miranda. That being said, the more a setting resembles a traditional arrest, meaning the more constrained the suspect fills, the more likely the court will consider to be custody. If the detention is voluntary and does not constitute custody. On the other hand, if the detention is long and is involuntary, it likely will be considered to write to the level of custody.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale says that you should never speak to police. The only thing that you should say to a place officer is that you want a lawyer, he says you are, however, required to identify yourself.

The test as to whether or not somebody is in custody is objective, not subjective. Therefore initial determination of whether a person is in custody will depend on objective circumstances of the police questioning, and not on the subjective views by either the officers who were doing the questioning or the person who is being questioned. As a consequence, the court may consider things such as the location of the questioning, whether police officers had their guns drawn, the link the questioning, the suspects age, and whether not he was told if he could leave.

According to Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale, traffic stops generally are not considered as custodial. As a consequence, Miranda warnings to not normally need to be given during a traffic stop. Here is an example. An officer stopped person for weaving in and out of traffic. The officer noticed that he had trouble standing and performed a field sobriety test. The defendant failed it. Without giving Miranda warnings, the officer then asked the person if he had been drinking. The man admitted to recent drinking and drug use. This confession was deemed to be admissible despite the lack of Miranda warning.