Does a cop have to read me my rights if I was put in cuffs but I did not go to jail? 57 Answers as of December 14, 2011

Mostly true, the cop does not have to read you your rights unless he is about to interrogate you. If he asks incriminating questions while you are in custody and they are designed to elicit a response, any statement you made may not be used against you in the prosecutions direct case (though you could be cross examined on them if you choose to testify). However, if the questions were investigatory in nature (i.e. have you been drinking?"), or if you blurted out statements not in response to a question, those admissions may be used against you in the prosecutions direct case.

This is a Miranda issue. The question to the court will be where you in custody and being interrogated. If both of these were occurring than yes the court should determine that those statements you made are inadmissible.

You only get Miranda read to you if they are going to interrogate you.

That depends on what you said, why you said it, and what the officer was doing. It is possible to challenge any of the statements being admitted, the fact that you were not read your rights does not make the statement automatically inadmissible.

I would need to know further details to answer better. However, generally the police only have to read you your Miranda rights if you are in custody and they are interrogating you (questioning you beyond routine preliminary questions.)

Many people believe that they must be read miranda rights when arrested or questioned. That is not true. Miranda rights only need be read when two circumstances are present - (1) the person is in custody; and (2) an interrogation occurs. You can be interrogated without being custody and you can be in custody without being interrogated. "Custody" is defined by case law to be whenever a reasonable person would not feel free to leave based on the circumstances. They need not be arrested. Interrogation means they are asked questions. If they are arrested and no questions are asked, there is no need for Miranda. If miranda is not read and a custodial interrogation occurs, that does not mean a case is dismissed. Instead, it is a basis to file a motion to suppress and statements made and any evidence that results from that interrogation. If there is sufficient independent evidence to proceed after that, the case may still go forward.

You need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number are not covered by the requirement of a Miranda warning. Additionally, the police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime. If you are questioned When you are in custody anything you said cannot be used by the prosecutor in the case that is different from the statements you made during the time you were in custody. Custody is defined as being detained by the police such that a reasonable person does not feel free to leave. In this case any statements after you were handcuffed fall under Miranda and cannot be used in the case in chief. As to if the statements before you were handcuffed can be used that depends on if you were in custody.

It may be true it depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the questioning. Not every time you are stopped by the police is it a custodial interrogation the police do have the common law right of inquiry.

The police are not required to read you your rights when you are arrested. They are only required when they question you and the penalty for not reading you your rights is the suppression of any incriminating statements.

Not unless he atttempted to question you after you were put in cuffs. If he did, then any statement you made may not be used in evidence against you at a later trial.

They can arrest you without reading you your rights. But if they want to talk with you about the matter, then (if you are under arrest) they have to read you your rights. If you are arrested and just start talking without being questioned then they can use your statements against you.

If you are under arrest then an officer must read you your Miranda rights if they want to question you. How did the contact come about and what actually happened. I have represented many people pulled over by cops, alleged to have been under the influence of drug/alcohol and handcuffed. Those types of stops do not become arrest until after they have submitted to evidentiary testing.

If you were handcuffed, it is likely that a court would find that you were "in custody". Before questioning a person who is in custody, the police must inform the individual that he has the right to remain silent, etc. If you were not advised of your rights any statements you did make while "in custody" may well not be usable at trial.

The police are not required to read you your Miranda rights unless two things are present. First, you have to be in custody. If you were placed in handcuffs you were most likely in custody. Second, there must be interrogation. That means that the police have to ask you questions while you are in custody. If those two things are present, then the police are not allowed to use anything you say in response to their questions against you. That does not mean that everything you say can be excluded. There are exceptions that apply to driving while under the influence matters, and your statements can be used against you if you volunteer them. For example, if the police officer puts you in handcuffs and you look at him and say, "I did it! I am guilty.", those statements can be used against you, because you volunteered them

Miranda rights require you be advised of right to remain silent when in custody. If you made inculpatory statements without questioning those statements may be admissible. It really depends on facts. Miranda is the most commonly misunderstood area of law among non lawyers.

If you were the focus of the investigation, they should have read you your rights prior to questioning. Failure to advise you of your rights could result in any statements being supressed. An attorney who can review all of the facts would be in a better position to advise you on this matter.

The analysis goes somewhat beyond whether or not you were read your rights. There is also the question of whether you were in custody at the time you made the statements. If you were in custody and were not read your rights, then there is likely a viable motion to suppress your statements. However, the judge will ultimately decide if your statements are admissible or not. Additionally, your statements would still be able to be used against you if you testified to something different at trial, for impeachment purposes.

The issue is NOT whether the cop gave you a Miranda warning. If you then made an incriminatory statement you can argue that the statement should be suppressed. If you didn't incriminate yourself not giving you the warning is meaningless - no harm, no foul. But even if you made an incriminating statement, who do you think the judge will believe and you have no credible witnesses - a "he said, she said" with the cop? It is VERY DIFFICULT to win this sort of motion. So the legal advice you are getting is true, but essentially worthless.

That is an incorrect and oversimplified answer. The police do not have to read you the Miranda Warnings. If you are in custody and they ask you questions they must give you the warnings or your attorney can run a Huntley hearing to try and suppress any statements that you made. If you made "spontaneous" statements that were not the product of custodial interrogation they are admissible. The police can simply testify that they gave you the warnings since they do not have to be in writing or signed by the defendant. This is usually done after a person confesses to a serious crime. They get the confession and then have you sign a Miranda waiver form so that your attorney cannot contest the confession.

The lawyer is oversimplifying the facts and is not 100% accurate. Miranda warnings only apply to custodial interrogation. So if the cops arrested you and you made statements in response to being questioned, a judge could prevent the prosecutor from using those statements. This presumes 1) the cop will admit that he did not read your warnings 2) your statements were made only in response to being questioned 3) you were already in custody and the questions by police are not considered investigatory. Even if excluded, the prosecutor may be able to use the statements to cross-examine you if you take the stand on your own behalf.

The attorney is probably right, assuming that you can prove that the officer handcuffed you, didn't read your rights, and then asked you questions. (Technically, the state has to prove what happened, not you, but if the officer says he or she read you your rights, the judge will probably believe it.)

Whether or not a statement you made can be used depends on several considerations. If you made the statement she in a custodial situation in response to police interrogation, the statement is inadmisdible. In any other circumstance it is probably admissible.

What the lawyer said is partially true. What you SAY cannot be used against you if you said something in response to police questioning & they did not warn you first. But, if you just said something without being warned then you waived your right to remain silent. I would suggest you look for a more enlightened attorney.

Not entirely true; it depends on many factors. Miranda (rights) only come into play if three things happen. First, you have to be in custody. This can be inferred most of the time by being in cuffs. Second, you have to be interrogated (questioned). This is trickier. Routine questions such as where you live, what's your name, and other "biographical" questions and the like do not count for the purposes of Miranda. Third, the questions have to be likely to elicit an incriminating response. In other words, the questions are designed to get you to confess. If all three of these prerequisites are there, Miranda rights should (but not always) be read. Then, if you volunteered any statements, which is different than voluntary, then Miranda does not apply. There are many other factors involved, and this can be a complex area needing further analysis. To simply say that your statements will not be admissible in court is grossly oversimplifying your situation and is probably not good advice. You may want to consult someone else and get more / better information before making your decision.

The general rule is that if you were placed under arrest, the officers have to read you your rights. If they failed to read you your rights, then whatever you said cannot be used against you in court. However, there are exceptions to that general rule. You should also consider that the cop will probably say that he read you your rights even if he did not.

No. Only if he was going to and did interrogate you. Then the remedy would be suppression of any statements or responses to questions by law enforcement after being arrested.

If you were in custody and being interrogated, then nothing you said should be allowed into evidence. However if you were not in custody, or made the statements without being interrogated, or were not clear that you wanted to exercise your right to remain silent, the statements could potentially come into evidence.

I would need more details to be able to give you a definite opinion on your case, but the general rule set out by the Supreme Court in *Miranda v. Arizona* is that a suspect must be informed of his rights (including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel) at the time of arrest. If these warnings are not given where they should have been, any incriminating statements made during the arrest and interrogation may be "suppressed" following a hearing on this issue and may not be used against the defendant at trial following a finding that they were made in violation of his *Miranda *rights.

This depends on whether the cop asked you questions after you were in custody. If the officer questions you while you are in custody (handcuffs), all of your answers are excluded from evidence.

Listen to your attorneys and ask questions. The answer you said you got is not complete. There are some statements that are admissible with out Miranda warnings.

It is true that nothing you said could be used against you since you were not read you rights. Unfortunately, in a charge for POSSESSION, what you said doesn't matter. The crime is complete if the police found you unlawfully in possession of a controlled substance. They don't need your confession to get a conviction.

If your rights were not read to you, nothing that you said to police can be used against you IF the police asked you questions. If you blurted out statements or admissions without being asked questions, then those statements can be used against you.

The law states that the prosecution cannot use a defendant's statement as evidence against him if (1) the defendant is In custody at the time of the statement, (2) the statement is in response to a question from law enforcement designed to elicit an incriminating response, and (3) the defendant has not first been advised of his Miranda rights. If all of the above are true in your situation, then I would agree that your statements cannot be used against you. However, police officers know the law, and if the police really need your admissions to make the case against you, then the facts may come out quite differently in court. Make sure your attorney specializes in criminal law prior to retaining him or her to represent you in this highly technical area of the law.

If you were in custody and the cop questioned you and failed to read you your rights, any statements you made in response to questioning may be inadmissible but it depends on all the circumstances.

It is not necessary for an officer to read a suspect's Miranda rights prior to making an arrest. Miranda requires the officer to advise you of certain legal rights prior to initiating formal custodial interrogation. If the police don't interrogate you, Miranda does not usually become an issue.

Based upon what you have said, that attorney may be correct. An arresting officer need not read you your Miranda rights UNLESS he/she plans to ask you questions. If the officer proceeds to question you without having read you Miranda, then the attorney is correct: anything he may have obtained through the subsequent questioning may be inadmissible in court. HOWEVER, let's say the officer stops you and proceeds to arrest you, and you begin spilling your guts without any prompting by the officer, then that information could be used in a subsequent trial. Hire an attorney.

That depends on the circumstances. Television and the movies haven't helped in clarifying the many misconceptions about Miranda warnings. First, the police do not have to read you your rights everytime they arrest you or even talk to you. Second, a Miranda violation will never invalidate an arrest. Let's take them now one at a time. The police only have to read you your rights when you are in their custody and they wish to interrogate you or ask you potentially incriminating questions. This is a case-by-case basis which hinges upon would the reasonable person feel free to leave or refuse to answer the officer's questions under the circumstances. Obviously if you are in handcuffs or have been arrested, you are in custody and not free to go. Now, did the police interrogate you or ask you incriminating questions? Routine booking questions such as name, address, etc. don't count. A lawyer would have to review the police report in order to fully answer the question. Also, even if there was a Miranda violation it will not invalidate an arrest. Miranda violations will only suppress statements and possibly evidence that was obtained by those statements. Sometimes due to Miranda suppressions, prosecutors will be left with so little evidence that they will have to dismiss or lower the charges because the suppressed evidence leaves them unable to meet their burden of proof. Hope this helps to clear things up a little. Haven an attorney fully review the case file before committing to anything.

If by rights you mean your Miranda rights, then the answer is no. We often are aware of the Miranda warnings due to movies with arrests. You have the rights even if they are not read to you. The first attorney you spoke with is correct. If you are arrested and are not advised of your right to remain silent, then your responses during an interrogation might be kept out of evidence. If, however, you were not interrogated, then your rights have not been violated.

Yes, they must read you your rights in order to use your statements against you. If you are placed under arrest and not read your right to remain silent, then your attorney may move to suppress your statement made to them while in handcuffs. It is up to the Court to determine if you are under arrest and whether or not to grant suppression, but yes, generally, you may suppress this evidence.

Your rights have to be read to you only of you are in custody and being questioned. So if you were in cuffs that qualifies as being in custody and if you were answering specific questions posed by the officers then no, those answers cannot be used against you.

Interesting that you're doubting what an attorney is telling you, but you're still thinking of hiring them. Your rights must be given to you if you are 1) in custody and 2) being interrogated. Cuffs does not automatically mean custody, although it certainly can. If there was a Miranda violation and your rights should have been given to you, but weren't, then any resulting statement should be excluded. If there is enough evidence to go forward without your statement, then the case can proceed. A Miranda violation doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire arrest or case.

What the attorney probably meant was, "Nothing you say after you were cuffed can be used against you in court." However, most cops are trained to get everything out of your mouth "prior" to putting cuffs on you. So, the Miranda violation may not help you at all.

If you were "in custody" (sounds like it due to the cuffs) and interrogated at that time, then the reading of the rights should have preceded the interrogation. The fact that you did not go to jail (but were probably issued a citation) won't matter. If you gave incriminating statements during the custodial interrogation, without having been read your rights, then your lawyer will make the appropriate motions to keep the statements out. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is not sufficient evidence against you even if the statements don't come in.

The police only have to read you your rights if you are in custody and being interrogated.

The remedy for not being read your rights ("Mirandized") is that any admissions found to be involuntary that you may have made to the police cannot be used against you. It does not mean an automatic dismissal of the charges against you. The police know this so they don't bother Mirandizing you if they don't need your statements or a confession to prove your guilt.

If the police ask questions while you are in custody without Miranda, then those answers should be suppressed cuffs usually means custody.

No. The only time a police officer is required to read you your rights, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Miranda v. Arizona ("Miranda rights") is when you are in custodial interrogation. This means that unless you are both in custody and being questioned (other than simple pedigree information) the police do not have to formally read you your rights.