The so-called "Miranda warning", or "Miranda rights", has been popularized by Hollywood movies and TV series. It's that archetypal "you have the right to remain silent; anything you say may be used against you in a court of law" speech.
The problem is that Hollywood has made it so archetypal that it has caused a lot of misconceptions about it.
The most typical use of it in movies and TV series is when a suspect is being arrested. It's a trope, a cliché, that the arresting officers will read the suspect their rights. However, this is just played for drama (and most often simply because it has become so ubiquitous), and has little to do with actual reality, even in the United States.
Because of this, most people think that the police has to "read your rights" when they arrest you, or else the arrest is illegal. This is a complete misconception, created by Hollywood, and is completely false. Sometimes police officers will "read your rights" (by making that famous speech, or a shortened variant of it) in real life, but they are not doing it because they have to.
The actual law is that a suspect in custody has to be informed of their right to remain silent (by the 5th Amendment), and warned that anything that they say may be used against them in a court of law, and that they have the right to an attorney, before they are interrogated. Both elements must be present: The person must be in custody, and the situation must be an interrogation. If either one of them is not the case, the police is not required to "read your rights". (They can of course do so at any moment, but they are not required to.)
In other words, the police can perfectly well detain or arrest you, without having to "read your rights". They are not interrogating you, they are arresting you. Likewise if you are not in custody, the police is free to ask you questions, without having to first inform you of anything.
More subtly, even if you are in police custody, the police has the right to ask you questions without the warning. Your rights are not being violated. It's just that if you have not been given the warning, anything you say may not be used in court against you. These questions usually mostly pertain to mundane things, like asking your name, other personal info, or any other such things. They may also freely ask questions pertaining to the case (it's just that, as said, without the warning they can't use it against you in court).
In some cases the "being interrogated" part makes it a bit complicated. Or, more precisely, when you are not being interrogated, just asked questions. It becomes complicated when not answering the questions (or answering them deceitfully) may be seen as obstruction of justice. The 5th amendment gives you the right to not to incriminate yourself, but when you are not being interrogated, and you are being asked a question that's not about incriminating yourself, in some cases refusing to answer may be obstructing the police in their work. The 5th amendment is not a carte blanche to refuse to cooperate with the police.
A more minor misconception (again perpetuated by Hollywood) is that there's a very strict wording of the "Miranda warning" that the police has to recite. There is no such statute. The police are free to use their own wording, as long as they make clear all of the person's rights who is being interrogated.
The problem is that Hollywood has made it so archetypal that it has caused a lot of misconceptions about it.
The most typical use of it in movies and TV series is when a suspect is being arrested. It's a trope, a cliché, that the arresting officers will read the suspect their rights. However, this is just played for drama (and most often simply because it has become so ubiquitous), and has little to do with actual reality, even in the United States.
Because of this, most people think that the police has to "read your rights" when they arrest you, or else the arrest is illegal. This is a complete misconception, created by Hollywood, and is completely false. Sometimes police officers will "read your rights" (by making that famous speech, or a shortened variant of it) in real life, but they are not doing it because they have to.
The actual law is that a suspect in custody has to be informed of their right to remain silent (by the 5th Amendment), and warned that anything that they say may be used against them in a court of law, and that they have the right to an attorney, before they are interrogated. Both elements must be present: The person must be in custody, and the situation must be an interrogation. If either one of them is not the case, the police is not required to "read your rights". (They can of course do so at any moment, but they are not required to.)
In other words, the police can perfectly well detain or arrest you, without having to "read your rights". They are not interrogating you, they are arresting you. Likewise if you are not in custody, the police is free to ask you questions, without having to first inform you of anything.
More subtly, even if you are in police custody, the police has the right to ask you questions without the warning. Your rights are not being violated. It's just that if you have not been given the warning, anything you say may not be used in court against you. These questions usually mostly pertain to mundane things, like asking your name, other personal info, or any other such things. They may also freely ask questions pertaining to the case (it's just that, as said, without the warning they can't use it against you in court).
In some cases the "being interrogated" part makes it a bit complicated. Or, more precisely, when you are not being interrogated, just asked questions. It becomes complicated when not answering the questions (or answering them deceitfully) may be seen as obstruction of justice. The 5th amendment gives you the right to not to incriminate yourself, but when you are not being interrogated, and you are being asked a question that's not about incriminating yourself, in some cases refusing to answer may be obstructing the police in their work. The 5th amendment is not a carte blanche to refuse to cooperate with the police.
A more minor misconception (again perpetuated by Hollywood) is that there's a very strict wording of the "Miranda warning" that the police has to recite. There is no such statute. The police are free to use their own wording, as long as they make clear all of the person's rights who is being interrogated.
Comments
Post a Comment