[RTFM]

To the LEO's here.
What happens if after the Miranda Rights are read and the detainee replies that they do not understand the rights??

My wife asked me about that and I don't have the faintest idea what would happen.

Thanks.

RTFM

[cloudkiller]

...asked the court to throw out the reading of Miranda rights as unnecessary/inconvenient...

What happened with that?

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Our Miranda is actually a form, which has to be read to you, you initial each point and then another officer witnesses it.

If you do not understand a certain point it is explained to you until you understand them.

If for some reason (mentally) you cannot understand those simple rights then I most likely won’t ask you any questions for concern that you cannot understand what I am saying to you as well.

For folks just being jackasses, that’s what a video camera is for.

Folks are under the impression you must have your rights read to you prior to being arrested, that is not the case, only when the arresting officer is about to question you.

[El Tejon]

RT, it depends, but you knew I would say that!:D

Sometimes the po-po shrug and stop (some departments have admin policy on this) and treat it as silence, if the po-po are smart, as Weasel sez, they'll get a camcorder and get it on tape to show the court what happened, sometimes they get a translator, sometimes it gets used at competency hearings.

[Pilgrim]

For the interrogation requirements under the Miranda decision to be satisfied, there has to be understanding and a voluntary waiver of rights by the suspect. If he keeps saying he doesn't understand, it is highly improbable he is going to cooperate and answer the officer's questions.

[Graystar]

There was a move to get the Miranda warning "requirement" overturned, but it failed.

The reading of the Miranda warning is not a requirement. However, the Supreme Court said that any confessions procured, without solid proof that the suspect was aware of his constitutional rights, were questionable.

And therein lies the biggest misunderstanding that people have with Miranda rights. The purpose of giving the Miranda warning is not to protect the suspect, but to protect any confession that the suspect might give! That is exactly what it says in the Miranda ruling!

So a cop can read you your rights, beat a confession out of you anyway, and then claim the confession is valid because you were fully aware of your rights.

That is what happened to those teenagers in New York in the Central Park Jogger case. They were bad boys, but they didn’t commit the rape. However, they were forced to confess and when they tried to recant the confessions at the trial, they weren’t able to because the conditions at the time they confessed suggested that they were fully aware of what they were doing.

We need to do away with Miranda warnings.

[Coltdriver]

Bottom line is that if you are questioned by a police officer after being arrested you just keep your mouth shut and politely inform the officer that you have no thing to say. Period.

What you do not say can not hurt you. What you do say can and will be held against you in a court of law.

You are under no obligation to incriminate yourself.

I know that does not answer your question but threads do diverge.

Anyone who would say they don't understand their rights and then answer questions is an idiot and is asking for trouble.

[F4GIB]

As Smokey Bear says "Only you can keep your mouth shut." Open it only to say "I want a lawyer." If you have to repeat that request all night, do so.

[JPM70535]

As a retired LEO, I completely agree that the Miranda warning should be relegated to the closed case file. After all the years of having Miranda assaulting our ears from the entertainment media, there is no way that every GG, BG, and Tom, Dick, and Harry is not completely aware of them.

[Pilgrim]

Miranda is not the big impediment to getting convictions the media likes to make it out to be. In major cases you need more than a confession to get a conviction. You need corroborating evidence. It is much easier to collect the evidence first, build your case, then confront the suspect with what you know and have.

For one thing, if something goes wrong and you lose your confession in court, all the evidence you collected as a result of that confession is lost too.

[Obiwan]

I have been advised (by LEO'S)that you should very politely say that you do not understand your rights.

Don't be a jerk, but also don't say that you understand

Chances are you really don't know your actual rights whether he "splains" them or not. And they are generally open to interpetation anyway.

Think of it as a buffer in case you accidently say something you should not.

[dustind]

If you were not read your rights but blurt out things without being asked they can be used against you. I think it is called a spontanious confession or something like that.

[Graystar]

There have been some cases where confessions were used against the defendant even though he wasn't read his rights. The is possible because your right is to not be compelled to give testimony. Compelled testimony is testimony that would otherwise have not been given, had it not been for some external influence (basically, being forced to confess.)

If you are not compelled to confess, then it doesn't matter if your rights were read to you. This is why the Miranda warnings are useless for the people. As I said before, the Miranda warning is meant to protect the confession that the police get. This is explicitly stated by the Supreme Court in the Miranda ruling. It does nothing to protect the rights of the suspect.

Recently California tried to take this a step further and argued that you can compell a confession, you just can't use it in court, as the 5th Amendment says. Of course, this was just an excuse to beat confessions out of suspects, use the confessions against them, and simply let a jury decide whether the confession was compelled. And since the suspect was read his rights, the confession MUST be valid because he KNEW it would be used against him :rolleyes:

Luckily, the California Judiciary didn't agree.

[furetto7]

We have two interview rooms, both rooms have two video cameras with overlapping coverage, both are hooked two VCR's, one is time lapse and part of the overall video security system, the other is a standard VCR that is used to tape all interviews, the tape is started before the officers enter the room and one of the cameras shows a clock. When the individual is advised of their rights under Miranda we use a standardized form that must be signed by two witnesses and the individual. If the individual being interviewed does not understand the rights or appears to not understand the rights we treat it as if they had invoked their right of silence and do not continue the interview. We are a small department and the boss has a very high standard for the conduct of his officers, it just isn't worth compromising our ethics for a questionable confession.

[LawDog]

I have been advised (by LEO'S)that you should very politely say that you do not understand your rights.

Don't do this.

Chances are that the Miranda warning and your response are being recorded, either by video or at least by audio-tape. If you don't understand the first time, the officer will patiently explain it to you again, probably several times.

If the case in which you were Mirandized goes to trial, the jury will either hear or see the tape.

The jury will hear the explanation of your rights, and if the jury thinks the explanation is clear enough -- in other words, if the jury understands their rights that the officer reads, and you state that you don't understand what the jury found to be clear as a bell, then jury is probably going to mark you as a smart-???.

"You have the right to remain silent."

"I don't understand."

"That means that you don't have to talk to me if you don't want to."

"I don't understand."

"Okay, let's try this one: You have the right to have a lawyer present during any interview by peace officers."

"I don't understand."

"That means if you want, you can have your lawyer with you before I talk any further with you."

"I don't understand."

"Right. Of course you don't."

After sitting through four or five repetitions of this, the jury will be getting frustrated with you and will probably be ready to hang you on general principles. Especially once the D.A. gets done with your tape.

This will not help your case in any way, and if your case is delicately balanced, it may tip the jury against you.

If you wind up getting Mirandized, the only thing you should say is: "I want to speak to my lawyer."

Don't get cute, don't editorialize, don't get fancy, just ask for your lawyer.

"You have the right to remain silent.
If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in court.
You have the right to speak to an attorney and to have him with you before any interviews with peace officers or attorneys representing the State.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you upon proper application to the court.
If you choose to speak to officers, you may choose to stop speaking to officers at any time.

Do you understand these rights?"

"I want to speak to my lawyer."

Short, simple, and to the point.

LawDog

[Intune]

furetto7, sounds like you have a good boss & a good dept. Thank you for your service.

[Pilgrim]

If you were not read your rights but blurt out things without being asked they can be used against you. I think it is called a spontanious confession or something like that.

Spontaneous admission.

I used to take arrested suspects to the substation in the city I worked to fill out the booking form prior to taking them to county jail. I would ask all the standard booking questions: Name? Address? Phone number? Next of kin? Work address? Any injuries? Any medicatons?

While I was asking all these booking questions it was very common that the suspect would start talking about his offense. I would just nod my head and keep filling out the booking form. I would record what they said about their offense. I just never asked any clarifying questions about their admissions.

When I was all finished with filling out the booking form I would then give the suspect his Miranda rights, ask him if he understood those rights, then if he said he did I would ask him some questions about some things I wanted to clarify.

"I ain't talking."

"That's fine. So far you have told me....", and I would list all the things he told me while I was filling out the booking form.

"You can't use that. You didn't read me my rights."

"I wasn't asking you any questions then."

Suspect: :fire: or :what: or :uhoh: or :cuss: or:banghead: .