i got arrested for what you may ask?

[Ironhead]

know that area well i work in Manvel tx ,,ever since they widen hwy 6 they have gotten tough out there

 

[dnz28]

where in manvel do you work?

 

[supercar1of1]

See above, John.

If you read that carefully you will conclude that it applies to questioning only after a formal arrest for the purpose of using the statement as evidence against the defendant in court.

I arrested many people for charges up to murder without reading them their rights unless I intended to question them.

Also if it is determined by the court that there was a violation, the case is not dropped, only the statement and any evidence obtained as a result of the statement, not the whole case.

It doesn't take long to figure out that if you have plenty of evidence without a statement from the defendant, it's best to follow the KISS principle.


.





.

 

[Ironhead]

im the plant manager of Southwest Quality Molding,,right off of 1128 and hwy 6

 

[TNVIPER]

Here ya go... :dontknow:

Berkemer v. McCarthy US Supreme Court 468 U.S. 420 1984

Sorry, TN. But, I'm a little jaded on this subject. I fought this very issue in court for a street-racing charge. I won it, BTW. Not trying to step on anyone's toes here, just letting everyone know their rights as prescribed by law and the constitution. :rock:

Thanks Jake for lookin up that case...just validates what I and LEOs have said here..

"The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing the case on 28 April 1984 in order to resolve the dispute surrounding Miranda warnings and minor violations such as traffic offenses and questioning motorists at traffic stops. Since the Fifth Amendment states that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal caseto be a witness against himself," state and federal law enforcement officersmust ensure that suspects are aware that they are not obligated to answer their questions, especially if the information is self-incriminating. Out of concern for such situations, the Court decided in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform all suspects of their rights prior to interrogating them."

The police cant violate your Miranda rights if they dont question you...I dont think you understand the reasoning behind this....if you go to court and say the officer violated your Miranda rights you would be saying that you incriminated yourself by admitting guilt.....the issue of this thread is not whether he was guilty...the officer saw him commit the crime....if I had the time I could show you Supreme court rulings that give the police to search without warrants.."Carrol search"...I may not have spelled that right..


BTW.....my brother is a former prosecutor and now a criminal attorney...he co-authored the TN prosecutors DUI manual....we discuss issues like this all the time...If I could do it over I would have gone into law myself...just tapped into it as a LEO and college degree in Criminal Justice....

And another IMO....most police officers today are very well trained professionals.....you never hear about the good cops...just the bad..

 

[Wifey]

Larry, what is the meaning of interrogation?

Is it interrogation when an officer walks up to you and says something like - Good day, I just clocked you at XXX mph, where are you going in such a hurry?

What difference would it make where one was going if they were already clocked at XXX mph?

What about those very basic initial questions you are usually asked :dontknow:

 

[TNVIPER]

Larry, what is the meaning of interrogation?

Is it interrogation when an officer walks up to you and says something like - Good day, I just clocked you at XXX mph, where are you going in such a hurry?

What difference would it make where one was going if they were already clocked at XXX mph?

What about those very basic initial questions you are usually asked :dontknow:

gets pretty detailed if you study the law....basically you have a right to remain silent if what you say will admit guilt...simply you have the right to not testify against yourself....that includes giving evidence against yourself before/during/after the arrest.....but there are other court cases that cover such things as "utterance"....while in custody and not being questioned you blurt out "I killed the bastard because he cheated on me"....police didnt ask you..you admitted...Miranda does not cover that.....law is very complicated..


To make things more complicated what is true in one area is not true in another...lower courts have to follow higher court rulings (local court must follow state court...state court must follow federal court....federal courts must follow supreme court).....what a federal appeals court rules in one district does not control another federal district...in other words what a federal appeals court rules in CA does not mean TN courts have to follow....if the U.S. Sepreme court makes a decision then all courts must follow..

Dang Denise....I am tired and been in the hooch..hard to debate...

 

[Wifey]

OK that's a fair answer. Thank you

Now, answer your PM :marchmellow:

 

[Black1]

Thanks Jake for lookin up that case...just validates what I and LEOs have said here..

"The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing the case on 28 April 1984 in order to resolve the dispute surrounding Miranda warnings and minor violations such as traffic offenses and questioning motorists at traffic stops. Since the Fifth Amendment states that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal caseto be a witness against himself," state and federal law enforcement officersmust ensure that suspects are aware that they are not obligated to answer their questions, especially if the information is self-incriminating. Out of concern for such situations, the Court decided in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform all suspects of their rights prior to interrogating them."

The police cant violate your Miranda rights if they dont question you...I dont think you understand the reasoning behind this....if you go to court and say the officer violated your Miranda rights you would be saying that you incriminated yourself by admitting guilt.....the issue of this thread is not whether he was guilty...the officer saw him commit the crime....if I had the time I could show you Supreme court rulings that give the police to search without warrants.."Carrol search"...I may not have spelled that right..


BTW.....my brother is a former prosecutor and now a criminal attorney...he co-authored the TN prosecutors DUI manual....we discuss issues like this all the time...If I could do it over I would have gone into law myself...just tapped into it as a LEO and college degree in Criminal Justice....

And another IMO....most police officers today are very well trained professionals.....you never hear about the good cops...just the bad..

We will just agree to disagree, Ok? :dontknow: I've submitted plenty of case-law... that's all I can do. Hopefully anyone else that wants to look further will do so (especially LEO's, for their own benefit). I appreciate the debate tho.

One issue I did have, was the statement in bold above.... I am pretty sure suspects are called "SUSPECTS" for a reason. That whole "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" business can be pesky, I know. But, that is why we are a democratic country and not a military state.

 

[TNVIPER]

We will just agree to disagree, Ok? :dontknow: I've submitted case-law after case-law... that's all I can do. Hopefully anyone else that wants to look further will do so (especially LEO's, for their own benefit). I appreciate the debate tho.

One issue I did have, was the statement in bold above.... I am pretty sure suspects are called "SUSPECTS" for a reason. That whole "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" business can be pesky, I know. But, that is why we are a democratic country and not a military state.

No problem with me Jake....I aint good at debating online anyway...my brother and I debate criminal law over lunch all the time....of course he has more education having a law degree and experience but I am the smarter brother.. ............thanks for making me remember my friend..

 

[DevilDawg3097]

My daughter and son-in-law love that phrase!

Believe me thats a phrase I live by now and another I repeat and DO NOT BRING A HIGH FULUTEN CITY LAWYER into a podunk town that just pissed the judge off even more. Prof stephenson county near freeport, answer this question, with a town of less than 1000 people why the hell was the jail bigger than joilet, and this was the local clink. You think chicago is corrupted, shit we don't have anything compared to these F^$%@&.IMO:burnout: :burnout: :burnout: :rock:

 

[Wifey]

We will just agree to disagree, Ok? :dontknow: I've submitted plenty of case-law... that's all I can do. Hopefully anyone else that wants to look further will do so (especially LEO's, for their own benefit). I appreciate the debate tho.

One issue I did have, was the statement in bold above.... I am pretty sure suspects are called "SUSPECTS" for a reason. That whole "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" business can be pesky, I know. But, that is why we are a democratic country and not a military state.

At the rate we are going, it won't be that much longer until we are a military state

 

[cobraken]

OK, I'll weigh in. First, hire an attorney to help you with this. Every state is different, but there are some constants. Miranda applies anytime one is taken into custody including traffic CRIMES (as opposed to violations). If there is no interrogation or statements, Miranda does not have to be given (no harm, no foul). Generally, just spinning your tires does not constitute reckless driving. Something else has to be present. Your description might be: careless driving (a lesser intent level and a violation), speed racing (an exhibition of performance or speed in most states), excessive noise (exhaust and or tires), violation of the basic rule (operation of a vehicle in a manner beyond that which is reasonably necessary), etc. If you got out of shape or too close to anyone it might rise to a crime.

Bottom line: If your description of what happened is accurate you should not be convicted of a crime but there are a ton of violations that apply.

 

[supercar1of1]

At the rate we are going, it won't be that much longer until we are a military state

The proper term is POLICE STATE, and when I compare the way thing's are now with the way they were not all that many years ago, I'm not sure we are not already there.

Case in point, a man here ended up being jailed for not paying his garbage bill to the city, and the police now have a "Quality Of Life" squad that goes around checking and giving citations if you leave something out or your grass needs cutting,etc.



.

 

[Wifey]

The proper term is POLICE STATE, and when I compare the way thing's are now with the way they were not all that many years ago, I'm not sure we are not already there.

Case in point, a man here ended up being jailed for not paying his garbage bill to the city, and the police now have a "Quality Of Life" squad that goes around checking and giving citations if you leave something out or your grass needs cutting,etc.



.

Now, that SUXXXX

and I thought it was police state, but I followed Jake's lead

 

[Black1]

Now, that SUXXXX

and I thought it was police state, but I followed Jake's lead

Typical sister.... blame it on your brother.

Oh, and I live in a "Police State" like that. It's called a HOA. :argh:

 

[Wifey]

Typical sister.... blame it on your brother.

Oh, and I live in a "Police State" like that. It's called a HOA. :argh:

Of course I'm gonna blame it on my brother, always have, always will We have been lucky so far and avoided HOA's. I hear they suck and you gotta pay every month or year however they're set up ...

 

[Black1]

Of course I'm gonna blame it on my brother, always have, always will We have been lucky so far and avoided HOA's. I hear they suck and you gotta pay every month or year however they're set up ...

Yep, ya do. And they can walk around and write you citations (not the cops either, it's the little old lady down the street with nothing better to do :argh: ) for ANYTHING... weeds in grass/flower beds, weeds in driveway, garage door open for more than 2 hours, garbage cans out past 5pm on day of pickup, unapproved yard ornaments in yard OR front porch (love that one), etc. But, most of FL is setup that way. :dontknow:

 

[Prof]

There is a purpose to zoning regulations. I don't think the police should be involved, they have much more important things to do. But there are situations that call for some community standards to protect the property values of people in the area...

 

[Ironhead]

i live in a police state HOA naborhood ,,we some some sorry mofo that will measure your grass if it is too high you will get a citation,,,leave can out you get one for displaying your trash receptical ,,i got one the other day cause i have a grapefruit size spot of oil on driveway ,,its wacked