![]() Three officers asked him questions in relay-fashion while he sat alone. ![]() The police then kept Doody up for thirteen hours, pressuring him to “man up” and “be straight” while telling him they knew he was lying. It was a garbled explanation that often was wrong, which Doody perhaps even invited by telling the officers he had never heard of Miranda warnings. The officers also took over twelve pages of transcribed conversation, spanning over twenty minutes of actual speaking, to explain Doody’s rights against self-incrimination. The officers also suggested the warnings were mere formalities which were meaningless because, the officers assured him, he was not a suspect. In Doody, for example, the officers suggested that the right to an attorney only applied if one had committed a crime, so the Miranda warnings given were inadequate. Consequently, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights. The court in Doody explained that Miranda warnings were vital to reduce the risk of a coerced confession. Doody raised two issues: first, the adequacy of the Miranda warnings and two, the voluntariness of his confession. ![]() Arizona (2011 DJDAR 6323) the court determined that the police violated the Fifth Amendment when a 17 year old confessed after thirteen hours of intensive questioning. In a recent Ninth Circuit case, Johnathan Andrew Doody v. For example, one must first be in custody, something that does not happen on the side of the road when one is sitting in one’s car speaking to a police. The answer we invariably give is “probably not.” The follow up question from the client focuses on the word “probably,” as there are several requirements before the rights apply under Miranda v. Miranda warnings are not required in most traffic stops at the outset of police contract with the driver. The Gist of This Article: Police are required to give Miranda warnings only when a suspect is in custody, or as other cases have held, in a form of “prolonged detention” or when a question seeks information that is clearly inculpatory and not otherwise observed by police or a witness. The question that usually follows is, “Does this mean my case will be dismissed?” The client will say that the police officer never advised the client of his or her rights. We at Greg Hill & Associates often hear our clients comment that, for example during a traffic stop, that the police officer immediately started asking questions and the client confessed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |