As Fresno Criminal Defense Attorney, I am often confronted with the Miranda question. Clients will often bemoan the fact that police officers did not read them their Miranda rights prior to placing them under arrest. This is by far the most common complaint that clients raise when I see them in my office. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), has become one of the most famous cases of all time. It's fame if, of course, due in large part to t.v. crime dramas such as Law and Order and old episodes of Hill Street Blues.
However, Miranda warnings only come into play if the cops want to use a statement against you in court. Many lay people in Fresno, and the rest of the United States, commonly believe that if the police don't read you your Miranda warnings. However, the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona led to a singular holding that police must warn people of certain rights if they are in police custody and the police are interrogating them.
The reason behind Miranda is that people should be reminded that they have certain rights bestowed upon them by the U.S. Constitution and they can invoke those rights at anytime. Custody means that you are in effect not free to leave. A brief roadside detention has been ruled not to constitute a custodial situation. (see Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984).) In other words, Miranda warnings are triggered when there is custodial interrogation.
In addition, the remedy for a violation of Miranda is that the statement is rendered inadmissible in court and any evidence obtained from the statement is inadmissible, unless the police can trace their discovery of that evidence to an independent source.
The case will not be tossed out just because the police did not read you your Miranda rights unless Miranda was triggered by a custodial interrogation situation and their case hinges upon evidence obtained as a result of your statement. This is not an uncommon situation, however, how Miranda works is not properly understood by many people outside the legal community. And for good reason, it is extremely confusing. Any case where the lack of Miranda warnings is a real issue, should be vigorously pursued by an knowledgeable Fresno criminal lawyer.
Continue reading "Fresno Arrests and the Reality of Miranda Warnings " »
Teresinski, the court held that the officer's mistake of law that the vehicle required a front plate constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We're very pleased with the ruling. 
