You are half correct.
Originally Posted by MAK
Miranda is required when two things take place:
1. The subject is or feels they are under some level of detainment, whether physical, verbal, or environmental. Miranda can apply after a detainment, but before an arrest.
2. They are being asked questions regarding the execution or involvement of a crime to which they are suspect (interrogated).
Traffic stops are the exception and do not apply because the very nature of a traffic stop requires a certain level of detainment. Also, the probability of making an attorney available on a traffic stop is narrow. Only casual questions or those specific to the traffic stop should be asked. Also, the issuance of a traffic citation may not be considered an arrest, depending on your area. The issuance of a misdemeanor citation is considered an arrest. Common examples around here are for shoplifting, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, simple assault, simple theft.
Miranda is never legally required. You only need Miranda if you want to use answers to incriminating questions against the suspect in court, and you’ve made the person feel like they are not free to leave.
An arrest can be (and often is) made without the Miranda warning. If a suspect is being detained, but not arrested, Miranda may be required if answers to questions will be used against a suspect in court. It is a safeguard to prevent people from answering INCRIMINATING questions (note the all caps).
If I happen to run into you on the sidewalk and ask “hey, what’s happening” and you say “I just robbed a bank", hands to you and says, "here is the gun, the weed I bought with the money, and the left over money” that is incriminating, but was not an answer to an incriminating or interrogating question. If the officer does something to suggest detainment (saying, “hey don’t leave”, having more officers show up, transporting them to the station, displaying or using handcuffs, showing any form of weapon, etc) then answers to any other questions I ask about the robbery or drugs cannot be used in court without the suspect being given his Miranda warning. However, it is possible to continue asking questions about the robbery without a Miranda warning if nothing more is done to make the person feel as though they are being detained.
Ultimately, it's all a matter of what the officer wants to use in court as evidence. If the physical evidence or witness information is sketchy, but the admissions are good, Miranda would be smart. But in the case above, I'd be golden without another word out of your mouth, because the physical evidence spoke volumes of your crimes (as long as I had a victim to the robbery; drug and weapon possession are good without a victim).
There’s a lot to the whole Miranda thing, and it can’t all be learned via a single message on a bike forum. Take a few law classes or attend the police academy and work on the road a year or two (or more)
Originally Posted by hotbike
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects, and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona.
Originally Posted by opskmallory
An exerpt from the majority decision by Justice Reinquist:
"In Miranda, we noted that the advent of modern custodial police interrogation brought with it an increased concern about confessions obtained by coercion." Custodial police interrogation (emphasis added) by its very nature "isolates and pressures the individual" so that he might eventually be worn down and confess to crimes he did not commit in order to end the ordeal.
I believe that we are splitting hairs here. You correctly state that "If the officer does something to suggest detainment (saying, “hey don’t leave”, having more officers show up, transporting them to the station, displaying or using handcuffs, showing any form of weapon, etc) then answers to any other questions I ask about the robbery or drugs cannot be used in court without the suspect being given his Miranda warning." The problem is that the OP didn't say that he was detained or otherwise required to remain. Yes, the lights mandated a stop (and are inappropriate in this situation) but after the original question, the OP could have declined to talk and been on his way. The fact that he might have been intimidated is not a constitutional issue.
The key, besides an arrest, is incrimminating questions while detained. "What kind of light is that"? is not an interrogation pursuant to an investigation.
I am pleased that the Utah police encourage giving Miranda warnings at the slightest hint of a constitutional question but overkill is not equivalent to requirements.
We really are splitting hairs regarding what constitutes custodial questioning.
Lets call this a draw or if you want you can claim victory. This is a bicycle forum so let's stick to two wheel related things.
BTW, Although I teach rather than practice and when practicing, didn't do very much criminal work, I did take "a few" law courses, actually three years of them.
I STILL miss East Hill :)
Twisted panties don't sound comfortable and finding a saddle that's errrm-FRIENDLY and stuff, that's a big enough deal.
Originally Posted by Raiyn
OUR PD is one of a few that actually give citations for being safety conscious.
Last theory is that if it's dark enough you could be a driver with a defective lighting problem and that is a major cue for drunken driving. As for the PC remark, as officer can pull you over for whatever reason deemed necessary. Nobody was asked an illegal, harrassing or sexual-related Q and so the question was not only valid it probably went to other officers where it might be helpful in advising other cyclists as to how to be safer, or maybe they'll buy the stuff.
Police are us with a big responsibility and 40 lbs of armor.
Smile at Miles with a ROLLFAST!
Originally Posted by 10 Wheels
I wasn't trying to claim a victory or even ensue an argument. There are just so many misconceptions about the "reading of rights" (thanks media) that when it was mentioned here, I thought it could not hurt to attempt to clarify some of that. And the comment about taking classes wasn't directed specifically at you. But I agree, let the talk continue on two wheels and associated bright blinky lights.
Originally Posted by MAK
What's a Zinglet? Link?
Originally Posted by MAK
I answered my own question. It's spelled "Xinglet."
Originally Posted by Angus
i misread it as "Singlet"