Should I have been provided an attorney for police questioning? 59 Answers as of November 08, 2011

You have to specifically tell the cops you don't want to answer questions without a lawyer present and then keep your mouth shut.

These arguments to suppress are very fact specific, but it is possible that the court finds that you are in custody and would require miranda warnings prior to questioning.

If it is clear that you are not and were not involved in any criminal activity and you wish to help the police, it is fine if you answer questions the police ask. But, if you believe the police suspect you of committing a crime or even if you are not sure whether you are a suspect, the best thing to do is remain silent or tell the police you don't want to say anything without first consulting an attorney. The danger of answering questions is that people often reveal information that can be used against them later without even knowing it. If you have not been arrested the police do not have to read you your rights. The rights referred to are you Miranda Rights.These rights are intended to inform people of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present if they talk to the police. You only need to be read your Miranda Rights if you are in police custody. So the question that remains then, is if you can be considered to be in police custody. If you were brought to the station, and did not feel that you had the freedom to leave the station, then you can argue that you believed you were in custody, and so any questions the police asked you should have followed a reading of your Miranda rights.

If you were the focus of the investigation you should have been advised of your rights prior to questioning. If you told the police you wanted to speak with an attorney, questioning should have stopped. You should speak with an attorney about the facts of your case to determine what action can be taken.

It depends on the statement you gave and at what point it was given.

You need to ask to speak "with an attorney" to evoke the right to havce an attorney present during questioning. A general wish to make a call may not be enough. Why would you call a friend and not an attorney? They were not an attorney, based on your desctiption. Also, you have to be in custody for miranda to apply The facts in your case are critical to any analysis. You should immediately hire an attorney to review your case to determine what defenses may be available. I hope that this was helpful.

The main question you should be asking is should the police officer have read me my Miranda Rights. The detective should have advised you what you were being charged with or investigated about and read you your rights. If he had done that, one of the rights is that you have the right to be represented by an attorney and if you cannot afford one, one would be appointed to you. In my opinion, your rights should have been read to you because you were obviously in a interrogation setting and did not feel you were free to leave. I would get an attorney to challenge the incriminating statements that you made.

Unless you specifically asked to speak with a lawyer, your statements probably can be used against you in court. You should contact a lawyer immediately to discuss the details of your interaction with the police.

The Miranda warning has to be administered when you are under arrest and being questioned. The issue for you is: Were you free to leave when you gave the incriminating statement?

Your relation of the facts is confusing, to say the least. If you specifically asked to contact an attorney, and told the detective this, then you may have a valid motion to suppress your statements. however, if you were vague and hemming and hawing, you may not have a valid motion. Did the officer advise you of your rights before questioning you? Why didn't you remain silent, and refuse to give any statements whatsoever? These questions are important, and the entire transaction needs to be discussed thoroughly with a competant attorney. Hire one before going to court, so he may investigate and get the facts straight, in order to represent you in the best manner possible.

You were not under arrest. Under arrest means you have no choice but to go to the station. Even though the officer kind of coerced you, you could have said no. Therefore any interrogation was not made while you were under arrest and Miranda does not apply. You were not entitled to a lawyer.

There is no maybe when it comes to requesting a lawyer. If you requested one, then questioning should have stopped. The police are not required to stop questioning merely because you wished to make another call. You still may have another argument or two that may convince a judge to throw out these statements depending on the rest of the case.

When the police detective took you to the station to ask you some questions that was a custodial interrogation. Before the police do a custodial interrogation they are required to tell you your rights. The most important of these is the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney. The detective should have read these rights to you. If he did read you your rights and you waved them then everything you said during the questioning may be used against you in court. If you did not wave your right to an attorney then the detective violated your rights. Asking to make a phone call is not the same as requesting an attorney. You had the right to have your attorney present at the time the detective was questioning you. If your attorney can prove that your right to an attorney was violated then everything you said during the interrogation cannot be used against you in the D. A,s case in chief. Additionally any evidence that came from your answers will be excluded as fruit of the poison tree.

No. You made the statement before you were under arrest (maybe), so he didn't have to tell you that you had a right to a lawyer. But, you can argue that you were actually under arrest much earlier and possibly get the statement suppressed.

If the facts show that it was a custodial interrogation, he should have advised you of your rights (including the right to remain silent and right to counsel) before he questioned you. There could be a Miranda violation and your lawyer could seek to suppress the incriminating statements. It will depend on the issue of whether or not the interrogation was "custodial". If he gave you the choice of not going with him, told you that you were free to leave, told you that you did not have to talk to him, this would tend to show that it was not a custodial interrogation. If, on the other hand, he said you had to go to the police station, had no choice but to go now, or other things that would indicate you were in his custody, it could be argued that he should have read you your rights before questioning. Best to call an attorney for a consultation and discuss the facts in more detail.

Saying you "might" habe wanted a lawyer is not the same as saying "I told the police I wanted a lawyer and they kept questioning me anyway". If you were read your rights and did not assert that you wanted to exercise them, then your incriminating statement can probably be used against you.

Anything that you say can be used against you as an admission. Your request for counsel must be unequivocal. Thus, it depends on all of the circumstances surrounding your request for counsel. A good defense attorney will move to exclude the statements under Miranda but this may not prevail.

You were not told you were under arrest, because when you made the statement you were not under arrest. As far as your statement is concerned, IF the police read you your Miranda rights before you made the statement, the statement can be used against you in the court. As far as your desiring an attorney, IF you did not specifically tell the police you wanted to call an attorney, no one is going to guess that you wished to phone an attorney. You were allowed to make a call, and you did not phone an attorney. So, the statement is probably going to come in. Do you now want to retain an attorney, so you can minimize the damage to your character and reputation, or do you want to go to court, see what happens and insist that you wanted an attorney after you get a conviction? You are in the same situation all over again. You seem to be making the same wrong decisions again.

If you were not told that you were under arrest, then you should not have gone. You needed to have requested a lawyer at the time.

Couple of issues: First, if you felt like you were not free to leave; if you were intimidated by the police and were not read your Miranda rights you may be able to suppress your incriminating statements. It depends on the totality of the circumstances; including your age. If you were read your Miranda rights and you continued to talk it is unlikely that the statements can be suppressed. Second, your right to counsel does not commence until you are arrested. So if you felt like you were not free to leave you may have had a right to an attorney present during questioning. The courts have ruled that in order to exercise your right to counsel, you have to affirmatively state that you are exercising your right to counsel. If you did not, it may not apply.

You must invoke your right to counsel prior to questioning or at any time after the questioning starts. The interrogation must stop once you invoke your right to counsel. Since you talked with the detective and incriminated yourself, it will likely be used against you to convict you.

Search and interrogation are highly technical and you need a skilled trial attorney in your area to fight this with everything you got.

Most criminals are not aware of there rights and are easily manipulated into making incriminating statements and confessions. They are not aware that they have a right to remain silent and that the police are allowed to lie to them, make false promises, and offer them incentives to confess. They must read you the Miranda Warnings if you are a suspect and are in custody, so they will just show up and tell you that you must come with them to the police station. Now they will play good cop/bad cop or use other tactics to get you to admit whatever they need to charge you and get a conviction at trial. They cannot coerce you, beat you, or hold you for more than 24 hours, and if you ask for an attorney and request that the questioning stop they must comply with your request or the statement can be suppressed. They will often ask you to sign a Miranda waiver before they question you, but sometimes they get the admission and then have you sign the waiver. They will tell you that they will "talk to the prosecutor" if you admit what you did. That implies that they will try to get you some consideration for your confession, but that is not always the case. If a person is stupid enough to commit a crime they are probably stupid enough to confess and the police rely on that fact to get admissions in most cases. In New York City the prosecutors even go to visit the defendants who are in jail waiting to be arraigned. They are often able to get people to make admissions and then their lawyers will have no bargaining power since the prosecutor will have a slam dunk at trial. The best leverage that a defense lawyer has is to request a trial and convince the prosecutor that he will win at trial with a jury and therefore embarrass the prosecutor. This bluff is very effective since prosecutors hate to lose a jury trial and will usually offer a better plea deal or no jail plea to avoid taking a chance with a jury. If you confess it takes all that bargaining power away from your attorney and he will be forced to accept any offer since he will almost certainly lose the Huntley Hearing to suppress the confession and lose the trial when the jury hears the confession or admission. Remember what my father, a famous defense lawyer from Buffalo always said, "Fish only get caught when they open their mouth." You would benefit from a good education, a strong moral compass, and an honest occupation. Meanwhile, retain a good criminal attorney to try to get the statement suppressed or get you a decent plea deal.

A valid argument can be made that you had asked to speak to a lawyer, but it will remain up to a Judge as to whether or not the Judge believes you or agrees that your intention was to call a lawyer if you were indefinite about saying you wanted to speak to a lawyer - in those words. Unfortunately, most Judges consider those to be the "magic words" that must be spoken to have your rights kick in when you have not yet been given your Miranda warnings. Hire the best experienced criminal lawyer you can find and go over the facts and details with him/her and see what can be done for you.

The situation you describe raises the possibility that your statement may not be admissible against you. Your lawyer will have to analyze all the facts surrounding the incident, including what the detective has to say, in order to know how to proceed.

If you were given your Miranda rights prior to questioning and you gave up those rights and answered the detectives questions, you could have a big problem. Hire an attorney who can help you with the issue.

The laws on Miranda and when you have to be advised about whether you need a lawyer are not can be complicated and have recently changed in some jurisdictions because of new US Supreme Court decisions that have come down in the last year. Hire an experienced criminal defense attorney and do not talk to the authorities again unless your attorney authorizes it.

I'd recommend you retain an attorney to assist you with this matter. If you cannot retain an attorney, the court may appoint you one at the public's expense. Speaking generally, if the police wish to interrogate a suspect while that person is in custody, they are required to advise the suspect of their Miranda rights. Miranda rights include the right to remain silent and the right to council. Most police departments provide a written notice of Miranda rights. However, Miranda rights may be waived. If there are any issues with a custodial interrogation, any statements from that interrogation may be suppressed through a timely and properly filed and argued motion to suppress. It all depends on the circumstances.

You had the right to an attorney before being questionned in police custody. The statement cannot be used against if you were not advised of your rights and you were in police custody.

But you were under arrest. You had no choice except to go with the detective; he need not say "You are under arrest." for you to be under arrest. You have a strong motion to suppress your statements to the detective. You need to hire an experienced and skilled trial attorney.

The right to be free from compelled self incrimination is a constitutional right. That right is part of the Miranda warnings where a person is informed that they have a right to counsel.. However, that right only attaches if - (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 should consult with experienced counsel regarding your case.

You can certainly make that argument. It's determined on a case-by-basis basis whether or not you were in "police custody" i.e. not free to leave, regarding whether Miranda warnings should have kicked in. From your version of the events, it sounds like you could make a good faith argument for it. You will need to retain an experienced criminal attorney to review the police reports and evidence against you in order to determine a course of action. Your attorney could file a motion to suppress and dismiss if any charges have been filed against you as a result. Consult with an attorney soon.

Normal 0 Interesting case. You have a Constitutional right to an attorney. Additionally, you have a Constitutional right not testify against yourself. However, they will likely say you were simply cooperating in their investigation. You need to hire a criminal defense lawyer to evaluate all the facts including whether you were in essence arrested, 5th and 6th Amendment issues, Miranda issues, and the statements actually made. You may have a decent suppression issue.

If you were "in custody", the officer was required to advise you of your right to consult an attorney and your right to remain silent. The police do not "provide you an attorney" but they are required to cease questioning if you told them you wanted to consult an attorney. It is not about the number of phone calls. It is more important to determine whether you made it clear that you did not want to be questioned without having the opportunity to speak with an attorney.

Your first assumption may be incorrect. That is, the assumption that you were under arrest. Accompanying an officer to his station and chatting in a conference room is only arrest if you are unable to leave. The officer is not required to read your mind. If you wanted an attorney present, you should have said so explicitly. You don't have the right to have a friend present; only an attorney. Unless you were interrogated and in custody, your argument is worthless.

Maybe. They have no obligation to advise you of your rights unless it is a custodial interrogation.

You are only entitled to a lawyer if you unequivocally asked for one. The police didn't have to read your Miranda warnings unless you were in custody and being interrogated. If the police read you your rights, did you waive them.

"Maybe I wanted to call a lawyer?" is not telling the police "I want a lawyer." Those are the magic words - "I want a lawyer,” NOT, I want to call "someone." Furthermore, since you were NOT UNDER ARREST until AFTER you made the incriminating statements, what the police did was totally legal. Your statements will likely not be suppressed for trial.

If he made you go to the police station with him and questioned you, that is custodial interrogation and required Miranda advisals, if they want to use what they got from you.

You have the right to have a lawyer at police questioning - but the police do not provide you with one. It could be argued in your case that you were in custody (not free to leave) and being interrogated so MAYBE your statements can be suppressed and not used against you. Hire the best lawyer you can.

Depends on whether they "Mirandized" you by reading or telling you of your right to counsel. If the police advised you of your right to a lawyer (not a friend) and you waived that right by answering questions voluntarily then you hurt yourself. There is no legal right to have a friend present during police custodial questioning, but you can have a lawyer if you specifically ask.

Miranda rights (if they were not given) apply when a "reasonable person would feel they were not free to leave) So, a good attorney should look at this.

If you're not under arrest, you have no right to talk with an attorney. Technically, you were probably free to refuse to go down to the station. Just because you ask for an attorney doesn't mean that the police are going to provide you with one, but clearly and unequivocally stating that you refuse to answer questions without an attorney should immediately stop the interview process. Commonly, people demand an attorney, but then they start talking anyway. There are a lot of issues here and it's hard to really evaluate them without knowing what you said and when you said it. You should immediately contact an attorney and stop talking to the police. They aren't your friends.

You were never arrested, so no rights ever attached. Without an arrest, everything is consensual.

The best thing is not to say anything you may have an argument that can be made to the court; however, you need to consult a lawyer. There is more to this case.

Maybe. But it depends on a lot of very petty details about the facts, so you really need to talk to your lawyer about it. You aren't really entitled to be advised that you're under arrest, but, when arrested (which you probably were) you're entitled to Miranda warnings, and you're entitled to call a lawyer.

Just because you weren't arrested doesn't mean you weren't in a "custodial interrogation", which is when a Miranda Advisory must be read. If you were not free to leave, or did not feel free to leave, and you were questioned, you could have the statements suppressed from evidence. If at any point you indicated you wanted an attorney, then the questioning should have stopped, and any statements made after that or evidence obtained from those statements could be suppressed at trial.

If you were in custody and they wouldn't let you go, and didn't ever advise you of your Miranda rights, then you may be able to suppress the incriminating statements. The question will revolve around whether or not you were "in custody" under the law.

You have to affirmatively state that you want a lawyer. There may be other issues if you were not read your Miranda rights.