- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DWI lawyer gets arrested
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:31 pm to theenemy
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:31 pm to theenemy
quote:
Ok, and if she was arrested, after she had been booked into jail the attorney could have contacted the jail and set up a visitation with her.
That is how the system works.
No no no no no, if what you're saying is true, then the couple of people I interviewed out in public areas during my "investigation" involving their possible wrong doing, they couldn't have an attorney there, but heres the kicker, they did. GASP!
I couldnt tell the attorney to GTFO bc I wanted to talk to his client without him there, thats bullshite and a complete violation of the man's rights. This girl just happened to be riding in the car with her attorney, whats he supposed to do sit there and watch while she possibly incriminates herself? You want the attorney to sit there and let it all go down, then hope that he sins some suppression of evidence motion...yeah thats bullshite.
quote:
This isn't Law and Order where the attorney bursts into the interview room and stops an interview. For an attorney to stop an investigation, it has to have an order signed by a judge.
Stopping an interview isnt stopping an investigation.
2
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:36 pm to brass2mouth
Exactly. These people think an attorney can stop the investigation.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:42 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
No no no no no, if what you're saying is true, then the couple of people I interviewed out in public areas during my "investigation" involving their possible wrong doing, they couldn't have an attorney there, but heres the kicker, they did. GASP!
Because you allowed it!
Miranda Rights only apply to those that are under arrest!
quote:
I couldnt tell the attorney to GTFO bc I wanted to talk to his client without him there, thats bullshite and a complete violation of the man's rights.
Miranda Rights do not apply if the person is not under arrest, therefore it is not a violation.
quote:
This girl just happened to be riding in the car with her attorney, whats he supposed to do sit there and watch while she possibly incriminates herself?
Per the law, yes. Supreme court has ruled that Miranda Rights are not applicable for a traffic stop UNTIL the arrest is made.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:43 pm to crimsonian
quote:
Exactly. These people think an attorney can stop the investigation.
They can't stop the investigation, but they can stop their client from providing evidence that may incriminate themselves.
The lawyer stopping SFST isn't stopping the officers investigation, b/c SFST is essentially an interview that isn't mandatory, and it just means that the cop would have to find other evidence of a DUI or let her go.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:49 pm to theenemy
quote:
Miranda Rights do not apply if the person is not under arrest, therefore it is not a violation.
No dude, if you are going to interview somebody specifically about a crime they are suspected of where they may say something that incriminates themselves, you have to give them their rights, there's no way around that.
Now, if you are just bullshite with a guy on the sidewalk while, I don't know, detailing on a parade route, and they he says he killed his mom that morning thsts different. You would then arrest him would need to give him his rights before any further questions about the matter.
quote:
Per the law, yes. Supreme court has ruled that Miranda Rights are not applicable for a traffic stop UNTIL the arrest is made.
Not as it applies to SFST, because once again you are interviewing them with the specific purpose of pulling information about a crime they are suspected of committing.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:49 pm to brass2mouth
The lawyer doesn't stop it, the client does.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:50 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
but they can stop their client from providing evidence that may incriminate themselves.
Wrong!
Miranda does not apply to a traffic stop until AFTER the arrest is made.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:50 pm to crimsonian
quote:
The lawyer doesn't stop it, the client does.
The lawyer advises his client to STFU and then gets arrested for it.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:50 pm to crimsonian
quote:
The lawyer doesn't stop it, the client does.
They lawyer is allowed to intervene and advise his client that he/she does not have to say/do anything. If the client wishes to continue anyway, thats a separate issue, but the lawyer is allowed to intervene and offer initial guidance.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:53 pm to theenemy
quote:
but they can stop their client from providing evidence that may incriminate themselves.
Wrong!
Miranda does not apply to a traffic stop until AFTER the arrest is made.
lol wuh. There are 5 amendments to the constitution.....
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:54 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
No dude, if you are going to interview somebody specifically about a crime they are suspected of where they may say something that incriminates themselves, you have to give them their rights, there's no way around that.
Wrong
quote:
The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.[16] Therefore, for Miranda to apply, six requirements must be fulfilled:
Evidence must have been gathered.
The evidence must be testimonial.[17]
The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.[18]
The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.[19]
The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.[20]
The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.[21]
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:55 pm to theenemy
quote:
You have a biased view of police officers therefore you want to re-write the law and ignore court precedence due to your biased opinions.
Yet your view is totally unbiased. RIIIIGHHHTTTTT.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:56 pm to theenemy
quote:
Third requirement
The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody. This limitation follows from the fact that Miranda's purpose is to protect suspects from the compulsion inherent in the police dominated atmosphere attendant to arrest. Custody means either that the suspect was under arrest or that his freedom of movement was restrained to an extent "associated with a formal arrest".[29] A formal arrest occurs when an officer, with the intent to make an arrest, takes a person into custody by the use of physical force or the person submits to the control of an officer who has indicated his intention to arrest the person. Telling a person he is "under arrest" is sufficient to satisfy this requirement even though the person may not be otherwise physically restrained.[30] Absent a formal arrest, the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have believed that he was under "full custodial" arrest.[31] Applying this objective test, the Court has held Miranda does not apply to roadside questioning of a stopped motorist or to questioning of a person briefly detained on the street—a Terry stop.[32] Even though neither the motorist nor the pedestrian is free to leave, this interference with the freedom of action is not considered actual arrest or its functional equivalent for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.[33] The court has similarly held that a person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave.[34]
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:56 pm to crimsonian
quote:
I bet the total arrests in this thread is pretty high.
Doubtful it is any higher than the abuse of power by the police in the thread.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:57 pm to theenemy
quote:
Fourth requirement
The evidence must have been the product of interrogation. A defendant who seeks to challenge the admissibility of a statement under Miranda must show that the statement was "prompted by police conduct that constituted 'interrogation'".[35] A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda. In Rhode Island v. Innis, the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect". Thus, a practice that the police "should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect ... amounts to interrogation". For example, confronting the suspect with incriminating evidence may be sufficiently evocative to amount to interrogation because the police are implicitly communicating a question: "How do you explain this?"[36] On the other hand, "unforeseeable results of [police] words or actions" do not constitute interrogation. Under this definition, routine statements made during the administration of sobriety tests would not implicate Miranda. For example, a police officer arrests a person for impaired driving and takes him to the police station to administer an intoxilyzer test. While at the station the officer also asks the defendant to perform certain psycho-physical tests such as the walk and turn, one leg stand or finger to nose test. It is standard practice to instruct the arrestee on how to perform the test and to demonstrate the test. (Note that the police will not tell the person that they have the right to refuse to perform the test, and the refusal cannot be used in evidence against them, nor can they be in any way punished for refusing to perform it, same as the police will not tell someone that they may refuse to perform a roadside sobriety test without penalty). An incriminating statement made by an arrestee during the instruction, "I couldn't do that even if I was sober", would not be the product of interrogation. Similarly, incriminating statements made in response to requests for consent to search a vehicle or other property are not considered to be the product of interrogation.[37]
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:57 pm to crimsonian
quote:
Another stupid one.
Says the cop.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:58 pm to theenemy
Miranda is all well and good, but nobody has to tell you shite whether they are "under arrest" or not. People have a constitutional right to STFU.
You cops are taking a shite all over the constitution as usual, in the name of "public safety"
You cops are taking a shite all over the constitution as usual, in the name of "public safety"
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:59 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
They lawyer is allowed to intervene and advise his client that he/she does not have to say/do anything. If the client wishes to continue anyway, thats a separate issue, but the lawyer is allowed to intervene and offer initial guidance.
Exactly. If she agreed to continue with the test after the lawyer advised her and the cop to stop, it is allowed to happen. Nothing wrong with it.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 6:59 pm to novabill
Nope
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:00 pm to brass2mouth
Here's what happened here:
- Cop with high DWI arrests annually pulls over car for small motor vehicle infraction late at night.
- Cop sees DUI attorney who he knows in passenger seat and is drunk. Knows that if the driver remains in the seat the passenger is going to instruct her on what to do.
- Cop begins sobriety test outside the car to avoid "interference". Attorney doesn't like that.
- Attorney instructs driver/client to shut up. Cop doesn't like that given their opposing sides of the law.
Really boils down to two people who don't like each other and both being annoying but one has handcuffs.
- Cop with high DWI arrests annually pulls over car for small motor vehicle infraction late at night.
- Cop sees DUI attorney who he knows in passenger seat and is drunk. Knows that if the driver remains in the seat the passenger is going to instruct her on what to do.
- Cop begins sobriety test outside the car to avoid "interference". Attorney doesn't like that.
- Attorney instructs driver/client to shut up. Cop doesn't like that given their opposing sides of the law.
Really boils down to two people who don't like each other and both being annoying but one has handcuffs.
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 7:23 pm
Page 11 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News