The Miranda warning only applies if the police are asking you questions. If you tell a cop everything and they didn’t ask a question, then it can still be used in court.
The Miranda warning only applies if the police are asking you questions. If you tell a cop everything and they didn’t ask a question, then it can still be used in court.
Cop: “how are you doing today, sir?” Me: “I am responsible for the rape and murder you are currently conducting a manhunt for.” Cop: “Oh, shit. He got me.”
*incriminating questions
If I ask “what were you doing tonight?” And you said “murder” it’d be admissible.
If I asked “did you murder that person” and you said “yes” it would not be if I had not mirandized you.
Edit: just wanted to add this since a few have commented: Civilian police only have a requirement to mirandize you if BOTH custody AND interrogative questioning are present. I don’t know if that’s the same for all states, but just wanted to add that for awareness.
Tbh as it stands this post is kinda flawed.
If you are admitting to your crimes then chances are there's hard evidence against you and just because your confession would be inadmissible doesn't mean the evidence they will find wouldn't still be used against you.
And even if you are caught red handed in a crime even an ultra fucked up one like murder and being arrested while literally committing the act, you still aren't required to answer any questions at all (though after being caught doing something that heinous law enforcement/detectives/feds would certainly try hard to push you into doing so) and can request a lawyer at any time.
The thing people really REALLY need to remember is that the cops aren't your friends. Whether it's an extremely petty crime or violent act, they will try to intimidate, to threaten you, and will lie to you. But they ultimately can't do anything and the more they try the more desperate they really are. Just keep a straight face, don't answer anything, and request a lawyer. They can't keep asking questions if you request a lawyer.
Keep in mind that the person who invented the methods of police interrogation was fired from his job after it was discovered someone that someone who was convicted that he tried his interrogation techniques on gave a false confession out of fear and didn't actually commit the crime.
Im actually in law enforcement and your advice is spot on.
Police absolutely can and will lie. Guidance publications say to not overuse it, as it can undermine your credibility with the subject and, worse, a jury if used incorrectly. Guidance is not followed by everyone, however.
ACAB
How would it undermine your credibility with the jury? How would they ever find out?
Interview logs/recordings or suspect testimony. If a good Defense lawyer catches wind (because they DO have the right to review evidence) they can use that to try and discredit the investigation or claim their client falsely admitted guilt because they thought they’d be found guilty regardless
Another reason to avoid it when/where possible is that if your suspect knows or suspects you’re lying you’ll lose rapport and all other interrogation techniques you use will likely be less effective with them
Interview logs/recordings or suspect testimony
I don't know how discovery works, but why wouldn't the prosecution fight to keep it out of the courtroom, arguing that it might bias the jury?
if your suspect knows or suspects you’re lying you’ll lose rapport and all other interrogation techniques you use will likely be less effective with them
In the age of "ACAB", when every twelve year old can recite "never talk to the cops, they're allowed to lie", "always plead the fifth and the shut up", etc, how often do suspects even trust officers in the first place?
🤓
"🤓"
https://preview.redd.it/g2jec64bsyta1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=052440b03c59254977e222811b28c9b6211fe843
his interrogation techniques on gave a false confession out of fear and didn't actually commit the crime
What!? you're telling me locking someone in a cold stone room with no windows and only 1 door for days and screaming at them the whole time about how they're gonna get thrown in jail and die and only if the admit to the crime will they get a lighter sentence, doesn't always only work on the truly guilty and mostly only works on scared uninformed teenagers or people with mental disabilities? Next you're gonna tell me the person laying on the floor with their hands over their head and who is crying about how they don't wanna die isn't an active threat to my life who must be eliminated immediately.
least schizophrenic r/whenthe poster
It's just legal advice
Who invented the method of police interrogation?
Well police interrogation goes back to the first uses of modern law enforcement with the London Metropolitan Police (at the time called something else) who were formed in the early 19th century and before that other forms of interrogation among early crime guards have existed all over the world.
But the one I'm talking about that's used prominently by US authorities is the Reid Technique.
The founder of the technique and it's namesake, John Reid, has had to testify in favor of exonerating prisoners who gave false confessions after other police officers used his technique on them and I believe either he or his partner were actually fired for the technique when it later turned out that one of the suspects was innocent.
And I mean is it really surprising that a police technique from the 1960s meant for intimidation and psychological abuse was abused?
I mean the US was an apartheid nation back then even with the Civil Rights Act signed and the 60s and 70s was an extremely rocky time that I would argue almost verged on a second civil war. I can't imagine authorities were willing to give alot of lee way when there were riots across the country every other day.
Bottomline is the mass use of DNA in criminal cases was the best thing to happen for the wrongly convicted.
the person who invented the methods of police interrogation
Who?
Only if you are detained. If you are not detained, Miranda does not apply.
I had considered posting this tidbit as well but it’s been a while since I took a civilian LE course so I was not certain if that was still the case. I do military LE and we are required by the UCMJ to advise individuals of their rights immediately if they’re suspected of a crime.
Multiple cases listed below are all about Miranda but are by no means the only ones. The UCMJ is obviously a different standard, so im not familiar with military variations. I can say that there is a very real school of thought (origonalist/textualist interpretation of the constitutionists) say that there is no constitutional requirement for this based on history (see decent in Dickerson)
New York v. Quarles (public safety exception)
Harris v. New York (a confession made in violation of Miranda may still be used to impeach the defendant)
Colorado v. Connelly (knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Rhode Island v. Innis (spontaneous utterances prior to or after miranda can be used against the defendant)
Dickerson v. United States (the warnings have become part of our national culture)
I believe it's actually arrested.
Detained is part of it. Ie the person is not free to leave.
[deleted]
Yes, I mentioned as a reply to someone else’s comment, I am aware of this but only because of a civilian LE class I took a long time ago so I did not feel like I knew enough about it to be sure.
I do military LE and we have slightly different requirements for rights advisements.
*incriminating questions
If I ask “what were you doing tonight?” And you said “murder” it’d be admissible.
If I asked “did you murder that person” and you said “yes” it would not be if I had not mirandized you.
Edit: just wanted to add this since a few have commented: Civilian police only have a requirement to mirandize you if BOTH custody AND interrogative questioning are present. I don’t know if that’s the same for all states, but just wanted to add that for awareness.
The rule is at least that restrictive in every state
Police officers hate this one easy trick
This is the kind of shit that happens on every episode of Law and Order.
Police arrest suspect one
Defense attorney files motion to suppress
Jack mccoy acts flabbergasted
Judge is like hes right mccoy, the video tape of him killing everyone in that maternity ward is OUT
police try to find more evidence
Uncover that is actually a previously interviewed witness who committed the crime
Mccoy cooks up some ruse and they end up getting upset on the stand in cross examination. They confess
Mccoy and the hot woman currently serving as ADA are drinking scotch in his office. We got em jack
McCoy looks directly into the camera. Yea but at what cost?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER DICK WOLF
That's correct. The Constitution covers being compelled to testify against yourself. If the cop didn't ask, it isn't covered by the 5th Amendment.
So
“Didn’t ask + You’re going to jail”
"L + Ratio + I'm going to beat you to death in a cell because I can"
Least corrupt police officer
The pipe bomb in my pant leg the incompetent police officer didn't confiscate:
there's this funny case, where a woman spoke for 3 hours to police after saying she wanted an attorney. they didn't ask her any questions, so everything she said was voluntary and thus admissible in court. hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzthOLOEGG0 she essentially confesses to a cop who couldn't say anything.
Wait so I shouldn't take legal advice from reddit memes?
Also have to be in custody.
Yep it's called spontaneous utterance!
Shut up nerd
Also cops can lie too. Who is the court going to believe? An innocent guy being charged or a corrupt cop?
Its all admissible. The cops and prosecutors do NOT give a fuck and and higher court probably hates you for existing too and will rule against you.
https://preview.redd.it/3woxiuy5e0ua1.jpeg?width=521&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50b5ffe6e210ccdba07b104e698e2fe5fe6551ff
"Sir, its just a parking ticket!"
This is an Arby’s
the police officer listening to me admit the most horrid shit ever done by a human being just for me to finish the sentence with “in minecraft”
https://preview.redd.it/1xzpbqki2xta1.jpeg?width=160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d20785e7d1c43f1a12c36e153777d45697ab11a
Me when I leak classified pentagon files on Minecra...wait a minute.
Me on my way to leak the details of classified military information to win an argument in warthunder
It is funny how often random video game forums have classified documents posted to them
well for war thunder specifically they do it usually because they want changes to happen to certain vehicles, often for (atleast to them) the better, since usually its one of their favourite vehicles, or to downgrade it etc
That's why it's so funny. It's relatable. Many of us had a little nerd rage before, but leaking classified military documents over it is truly serious gaming, lol.
random
military documents on military related forums?? wow that's so out of left field!!!
War Thunder is not a military related forum it's a vijigame
okay mate sure, war thunder isn't more related to the military than splatoon, gotcha
A military video game, so I guess like…third order related?
Me when i leak them on the thugshaker central discord (literely real)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/65240603.amp
Fat furry porn
Psh, that's small potatoes.
Not even illegal my man
Group hallucination
Mandela effect, like berenstein bears and the fruit of the loom cornucopia
IT WAS REAL. I'VE SEEN IT.
😳😳😳🤤🤤🤤🤤🤯🤯🤯🤯🔥🔥✍️✍️🔥🔥🥰🥰😊🥺😱😱🤨🤨📸
🤨🤨📷📷😐🙃🤤🤤🤤🤤🥵🥵🥵🥵🍆🍆💦💦💦💦🤰🤰🤰🤰🤰🤰🍆🍆😻😻😻😻😻😻
Average conversation about Rimworld
One of my favorite war crime simulators
Funnily enough, if you describe a very detailed crime and end it "in minecraft", you can still get in trouble with the police
didn't some 4Chan user get arrested for exactly that?
Yeah some guy was like “I’m gonna kill [actual full name of his towns sheriff] with a shotgun
In minecraft”
(But in a lot more detail) And got arrested
the police: 🤓☝️
Which is bullshit tbh.
Imagine I murder someone then go to the police and say I murdered them “in Minecraft” with blood on my hands still.
You got blood on your hands that is not yours...
You don't know that. Maybe they cut themselves shaving with the kitchen knife they have in one of their hands and it got REAL bad.
I an glad the police can investigate that before jumping to conclusions or taking away someone's rights needlessly.
I'm finding this hard to be even true but assuming it is, don't you find it a little concerning that actual blood on your hands warrants more of an investigation than saying you killed someone in minecraft? I mean I agree with the need for an investigation over automatic assumption of guilt just because there's blood on your hands, but apparently saying you killed someone in minecraft means you're automatically in trouble?
Only friendly Minecraft play is permitted. all other forms will be punished by law.
Se7en (1995)
Anything you say to the police can be used against you, but won’t be used to help you.
This is very cringe and i regret thinking about it to this day, but back in the day like 2016-2017 on public servers i used to tell the mods to kill themselves but then type "in minecraft" to bypass the irl death threats rule so they couldnt mute me
Yeah that's cringe as fuck
yep
This is very cringe
you've grown, that's what matters
Actually, thank you for sharing this. I have done and said so much that I regret, and it's comforting to know I'm not alone
Chad tell someone to off themselves versus beta being nice to people
I’m not disappointed. In fact, I’m doubly proud you’ve grew.
There actually has been arrests because someone made death threads on 4chan and ended the thread with "in Minecraft"
https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-does-in-minecraft-mean-why-a-4chan-user-was-arrested-after-posting-this-viral-phrase-explained
Bro is unironically the epitome of the 4channer and Redditor stereotype. Overweight, discolored t-shirt, unkempt long hair and neckbeard, living in mom's house, and so stupid that he admitted to making the post. It is honestly kinda sad that the only real differences are that I keep my hair trimmed, shave at least once a week, and keep my t-shirts really clean...
Bro is unironically the epitome of the 4channer and Redditor stereotype.
That's also what I thiugh when I heard of him the first time
I betrayed paarthurnax in minecraft
You will receive the lethal injection in 34 minutes
In Minecraft
As you should
https://i.redd.it/jrjyx2pknwta1.gif
Yikes, now you are definitely guilty.
Better call kiryu
That's not how it works. They literally tell you that "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" That doesn't just magically kick in when they say it, it applies to you the entire time, they're just reminding you. So even if you admitted everything before they read you your rights, it's still held against you. 🤓
Held these nuts against you lmao gottem
Get fucked /u/Clunt-Baby
Legend
absolutely gottem lmao
Fkn ded
Miranda rights readings are NOT retroactive. If they were, police wouldn’t read them to you right away, they’d interrogate the shit out of you and then say “oh by the way, you have these rights.” The Supreme Court established that officers must make you aware of your rights prior to questioning you in a potential criminal matter, if they start in on questioning first then what you say prior to your rights being read would very likely be inadmissible.
However, OP’s scenario still would leave them fucked. The requirement for rights to be read does NOT protect you if you simply give up incriminating evidence without being asked about it. You can’t just air your dirty laundry to a police officer and hide behind them not having read your rights first. You’re not protected from being a dumbass, you’re protected from police leaning on you without you being made aware of what your rights as a citizen are.
I study Criminology, and the easiest way to summarize this scenario that I’ve been taught through all of my classes is this. If an officer (or other official) asks you “did you commit this crime?” Before reading the Miranda rights, anything you give up (if you are under the impression that they have more power over you than they do) is inadmissible. If you just went up to an officer and started admitting to a crime without them even saying anything, you are still accountable for everything.
So if they were to say “what happened here” at a crime scene would that be admissible?
Most likely if they are just talking to themselves, but if it is a question intended to obtain a response from you, there would be a solid argument that it would not be admissable
Yes. Miranda only needs to be read if you're not free to leave (ie: under arrest). There's a ton of incorrect info in this thread that seems like people learned from watching tv.
This is one of those many “grey areas” in the criminal justice system, but to me personally it would depend on the officers “intent”. If he said it in a very forceful way, implying “you better give up info or else” kind thing, then it’s absolutely deplorable and anything divulged should be inadmissible. If the cop was generally just asking what the situation was, there’s reason to believe he was just trying to get caught up on the situation, as opposed to questioning someone. TL;DR, there’s a difference between asking what happened at a scene to simply get up to speed (like, was someone found dead or not, how many, injuries etc) and asking something like “what happened really, you better tell me or else” kinda deal
You're not in custody and you're free to leave so Miranda Rights do not apply.
"Before we get started, do you have anything you'd like to tell me?"
Only the statements themselves wouldn't be inadmissible. If they go where you told them a body was, they could still use the body they just couldn't say you told them about it.
You could not be more wrong
How does that work if only one cop heard it? Will it just result in them going "he said [incriminating thing] during arrest" followed by a reply going "Nuh-uh you got no proof"
Body cams and police dash cams both usually record audio
A policeman body cam? How would that be used they are always off or with corrupted footage/j
A policeman body cam? How would that be used they are always off or with corrupted footage/j
I'm dumbfounded I forgot about that
Correct. If they haven't cuffed or detained you yet, anything you say is 100% admissible even before you are read your rights. Just don't talk to police ever, they aren't your friend. If they can't fix a problem with a point-and-click death machine, they will make the problem worse with the same point-and-click hole maker. If you don't want someone dead, get help elsewhere, US police have absolutely no requirements to act in anyone's best interest aside from their own.
In Germany it actually means that
Me when I yell I have a bomb in a crowded airport
You don’t have to be Mirandized until custodial interrogation. TV and film has given people the idea that you have to be Mirandized as soon as you’re detained; some departments may do this to cover their ass, but it’s not legally required until they begin questioning you while you’re detained.
They don’t have wait to interrogate you do they? Is there anything stopping them from talking to you right away when you are detained?
No, they can Mirandize you whenever as long as it’s before custodial interrogation begins. They can do it immediately after you’re detained, but they don’t have to do until they begin questioning you. “Custodial interrogation” just means 1) you’re detained and 2) they’re asking you questions. If you freely offer the information as in OP’s meme, you don’t have to be Mirandized for it to be admissible.
This seems like an intended loophole, at least as far as I am concerned since I am ignorant of what custodial interrogation is, or when it begins. I would suspect most laymen of the law would be as well. If a cop has determined that I am under arrest, and has told me so, then asks me literally any question... I would consider that custodial interrogation. Is that the legal view?
Yes, that would be considered custodial interrogation. If they didn’t Mirandize you beforehand, any information they gained during that questioning would be inadmissible.
It’s essentially an extension of the Fifth Amendment. The case from which it takes its name is was one in which the defendant was unaware and unadvised that he had a constitutional right to have counsel present during questioning. I wouldn’t call it a loophole since the ruling explicitly benefits suspects rather than law enforcement.
I did this and all I got was life in prison and my butthole stretched to the size of Marianas trench.
Thanks a lot, asshole
Your support system failed, lol
Skill issue
[deleted]
Kinda based
Posted by a cop.
If you put Vaseline on your face they cant record your face during a bank robbery
This sub is either 15 year olds or legitimately stupid adults.
Spontaneous utterance
Miranda rights only come into play once an arrest begins. You can confess a crime to a cop at anytime and it can absolutely be used against you
moves lips
I had to think fast
This would fall under "spontaneous utterance" especially since the event had just happened in your scenario. Everything would be usable in court.
Does that really work? Just curious
No
Can't believe I can download this gif, I can only subscribe to this post
Nope, other way around. If law enforcement refuses an individual in their custody to read them their Miranda rights, they may interrogate and ask questions and even act in the charges, but nothing can be used in court since no rights were obtained in the detainment.
“a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law.”
“Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not ordinarily use that person's statements as evidence against them in a criminal trial.”
People getting way too serious about this obvious satire
You’d be completely shocked at people who think literally like this. I’m talking chug a beer, toss the can and throw their keys in the woods in front of officers so they don’t have their keys in like 10 yards of them
Prosecutor here - Miranda only comes into play if you are in custody of police and are being interrogated - if only one or none exist then Miranda rights are not “activated” - so if you are detained/arrest but police are not asking you anything and you make statements - they are considered “spontaneous” and can be used against you
Parallel construction and excited utterance has entered the chat. Ert's going away for a long time.
Not going to work. The police officer will engage in “testilying” in the court and claim that the Miranda was communicated to the officer prior to the confession.
Then it becomes the officer’s word against yours.
Yeah. That’s not how it works meme
But what about his body cam footage, not admissible as evidence?
No witnesses
u/profanitycounter
fed
Never admit anything.
r/attorneytom
Excited/Spontaneous Utterance. Welcome to Jail.
Saul Goodman here, this doesn't work. My client tried it and now even i can't do anything to get him out.
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.