# Do the police inform you of your rights, if you are not under arrest?



## ironpony (Apr 7, 2019)

I tried researching it on google, but I could find a site that directly talks about this situation specifically... but I was wondering, if the police want to interview the victim a to a crime, would they inform the victim of their right to have a lawyer present, and that if they have the right to remain silent, but if they do not, that anything they say can be used against them?

Or do the police just tell that to people who have been arrested, and suspects, and not victims of the crime?


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I tried researching it on google, but I could find a site that directly talks about this situation specifically... but I was wondering, if the police want to interview the victim a to a crime, would they inform the victim of their right to have a lawyer present, and that if they have the right to remain silent, but if they do not, that anything they say can be used against them?
> 
> Or do the police just tell that to people who have been arrested, and suspects, and not victims of the crime?



I copy-pasted this sentence into google "if the police want to interview the victim a to a crime, would they inform the victim of their right to have a lawyer present" and this was the first entry on google.com: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/questioning-after-claiming-miranda.html on which the first line is "_Once someone detained by the police* invokes *Miranda by expressing a desire to remain silent, have counsel present, or both, the police must stop interrogation_."

 Is there a reason you couldn't figure this out by yourself?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Apr 7, 2019)

They should read you your rights (Miranda) before arresting you, and after having done so, should advise you of your right to legal representation and, I believe, a telephone call (which always leads to "_If you're innocent, why do you need a lawyer_") - But what do I know of American law, I live in England...


----------



## ironpony (Apr 7, 2019)

Yes, I read that exact same page after googling it.  However, the article talks about the person being interviewed as the 'defendant'. or the 'suspect', who has been 'detained', as the word they used.

I am wondering if the police inform a person of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present, if they are interviewing the victim of a crime, not the defendant.   The article doesn't say anything about if the victim of a crime is informed of their rights by police or not.

What I mean is, if the police want to interview the victim of a crime, and the victim is not under arrest or detained, and the police just want to ask the victim questions, what then?  No google article I can find seems to talk about if the victim is informed of rights.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh yes, I read that exact same page after googling it.  However, the article talks about the person being interviewed as the 'defendant'. or the 'suspect', who has been 'detained', as the word they used.
> 
> I am wondering if the police inform a person of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present, if they are interviewing the victim of a crime, not the defendant.   The article doesn't say anything about if the victim of a crime is informed of their rights by police or not.



No, because interview is voluntary. The reason Miranda rights exists is to ensure the admissibility of evidence in a courtroom. It's not to help the suspect but to help the police by ensuring the arrested person is cognizant that what they choose to say can be used against them in a courtroom. It avoids a possible get-out on the technicality of malpractice if, for instance, the suspect ends up being deaf or mentally incompetent or unable to speak English.

If a cop is 'just talking' to somebody there is, supposedly, not prospect of an imminent arrest, charge, and courtroom appearance and therefore lawyers are presumed irrelevant. 

In practice, of course, it is absolutely possible for somebody to incriminate themselves through such an interview and what you say can be used against you at any time, but it is not the police officer's job to help you and there are no rules governing informal 'chit chats'. Police have a lot of freedom to say whatever they want to say, including lying, and very little responsibility. 

In practice reading rights is mostly irrelevant anyway because a crooked cop can always say they read you your rights and claim you waived them. In order for Miranda rights to have merit it is up to the person in question to assert them through _demanding _a lawyer and _refusing _to incriminate themselves with or without prompting. That is no different in an 'interview' situation. Common sense is that if you have something to hide you say nothing without an attorney present. Hence I bolded the work *invoke.*


----------



## ironpony (Apr 7, 2019)

Okay thanks, but I read that when you are read your rights, you are given a piece of paper that you sign, to save you have waived them.  So wouldn't a crooked cop be legally required to produce a signed waiver therefore?  I read in it in the book Police Procedure and Investigation:  A Guide to Writers.  Unless the book is wrong on that?

Also let's say a victim comes of a crime comes to the police voluntarily, but then later, her words are used against her.  Wouldn't she say the police never informed her of any Miranda rights, when being interviewed, and wouldn't the police, not being able to produce that piece of paper, be bitten in the butt legally therefore, if the court chooses to use her words against her?


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, but I read that when you are read your rights, you are given a piece of paper that you sign, to save you have waived them.  So wouldn't a crooked cop be legally required to produce a signed waiver therefore?  I read in it in the book Police Procedure and Investigation:  A Guide to Writers.  Unless the book is wrong on that?



That's going to be up to the jurisdiction/state and their policies/state law. There's no Federal standard prescribed by SCOTUS concerning format or even language to fulfill Miranda requirements. All that is needed is some way to satisfy a court that the suspect 'knowingly' waived their right to an attorney and kept talking after they were advised they did not have to. And a crooked cop isn't going to be deterred by paper anyway. They could fill it out later if they wanted.



> Also let's say a victim comes of a crime comes to the police voluntarily, but then later, her words are used against her.  Wouldn't she say the police never informed her of any Miranda rights, when being interviewed, and wouldn't the police, not being able to produce that piece of paper, be bitten in the butt legally therefore, if the court chooses to use her words against her?



All things being equal, courts typically side with the police the vast majority of the time. That's why getting a lawyer is important. Whether the police did or did not properly follow the law concerning Miranda is up to the discretion of the court. 

In any case, I told you already that Miranda rights only have to be read at time of arrest and the person-of-interest/suspect is actually responsible for whether or not they talk. You can't apply them retroactively to stuff you have already said. Once you've said something incriminating, it can be used against you, period.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 7, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, but I read that when you are read your rights, you are given a piece of paper that you sign, to save you have waived them.  So wouldn't a crooked cop be legally required to produce a signed waiver therefore?  I read in it in the book Police Procedure and Investigation:  A Guide to Writers.  Unless the book is wrong on that?



That's going to be up to the jurisdiction/state and their policies/state law. There's no Federal standard prescribed by SCOTUS concerning format or even language to fulfill Miranda requirements. All that is needed is some way to satisfy a court that the suspect 'knowingly' waived their right to an attorney and kept talking after they were advised they did not have to. And a crooked cop isn't going to be deterred by paper anyway. They could fill it out later if they wanted.



> Also let's say a victim comes of a crime comes to the police voluntarily, but then later, her words are used against her.  Wouldn't she say the police never informed her of any Miranda rights, when being interviewed, and wouldn't the police, not being able to produce that piece of paper, be bitten in the butt legally therefore, if the court chooses to use her words against her?



All things being equal, courts typically side with the police the vast majority of the time. That's why getting a lawyer is important. Whether the police did or did not properly follow the law concerning Miranda is up to the discretion of the court. 

In any case, I told you already that Miranda rights only have to be read at time of arrest and the person-of-interest/suspect is actually responsible for whether or not they talk. You can't apply them retroactively to stuff you have already said. Once you've said something incriminating, it can be used against you, period.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 7, 2019)

Oh okay thanks.  I was reading about how sometimes, the victim of the crime is arrested to secure their testimony if they are uncooperative, and fail to accept being subpoenaed.  I was thinking of using this situation for my story, but I was wondering, what good is it to arrest a victim of a crime to secure her testimony, when she could just exercise her right to remain silent anyway?  What good is detaining them then, if they don't have to to talk legally, or am I missing something?

Plus let's say the victim of a crime is not read their rights when making a statement to the police voluntarily, because she is not under arrest.  If she were to say something that was legally used against her later, could she successfully argue to the court that she was not read her rights, and if the police actually say they did not read her, her rights, cause she was not under arrest, would that be a successful argument on her part?  You say you cannot apply them to stuff you retro-actively said, before being informed, but what if you were not informed at all?  Does that make any legal difference?

But also, let's say a victim is arrested for not cooperating with the court.  When she is arrested, they will still read her, her right to remain silent, since she has been arrested, right?  Why would she have the right to remain silent, if the purpose of arresting her, is to get her to talk?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 7, 2019)

Often the police use round-about ways to read you your rights. They don't always repeat that classic old Miranda warning you hear on TV. Oftentimes they mix it up so it's just part of the conversation, like:
"Mister Iron, I'd like to thank you for talking to us, it really helps us a lot when citizens step forward in situations like this. I mean, y'know, as a citizen you don't even have to talk to us, so it really helps out the community when you are upfront like this."

That's how they'd slip in your right to remain silent. Elsewhere in the conversation you drop facts like the lawyer and such. 
They are only required to make you aware of your rights, but nothing requires them to do it in the classic robotic style of a 1970s show.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 7, 2019)

Oh okay, I read that they have to give you a paper, informing you of your rights, and that if you wave them, you have to sign the paper to legally confirm doing so, unless this is just certain jurisdictions and not everywhere.


----------



## moderan (Apr 7, 2019)

"You have the right to remain unconscious." -- famous movie quote.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 8, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, I read that they have to give you a paper, informing you of your rights, and that if you wave them, you have to sign the paper to legally confirm doing so, unless this is just certain jurisdictions and not everywhere.



That would be something further in the legal process. But during questioning they are not required to give Miranda in writing.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 9, 2019)

Oh I see, thanks.  Now if the police want a victim or witness to come in for questioning, and not someone who has been arrested, do they still let you know of your rights to not say anything without a lawyer present, or do they just do that for people who have been arrested only?


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 9, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh I see, thanks.  Now if the police want a victim or witness to come in for questioning, and not someone who has been arrested, do they still let you know of your rights to not say anything without a lawyer present, or do they just do that for people who have been arrested only?



Refer to post #5.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 9, 2019)

Okay thanks.  In fiction before, I saw it written that sometimes the police still tell a person they have the right to have a lawyer present, even if that person was not under arrest and they chose to come in and make a statement voluntarily.  So I thought maybe the police would still tell a person that perhaps.  But if they don't, they don't.  Thanks.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 9, 2019)

If they're not a suspect, they'll usually ask for a verbal description of the scene, followed by a written statement. They are not required to mirandize witnesses and people who are not suspects. If that person suddenly confesses without being mirandized, it is deemed 'spontaneous admission' and accepted as evidence. Legally, it's not the cop's fault if you open your mouth and say dumb chit.

But I am a little gray about how long after a spontaneous admission the police must mirandize a new suspect. I believe they don;t have to read you your rights until you stop talking on your own volition. This is where cops begin to slip in that roundabout miranda warning I mentioned earlier. They slip it in, usually in pieces, as conversation, so the defendant doesn't even realize they have been warned.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 10, 2019)

Oh okay, so basically in court, they only have to say they gave you the piece of paper to sign that you waived your rights, only after they arrested you then, is that right?


----------

