April 15, 2016 Most people are aware that arrestees have certain rights, and that police often advise them of these rights at the time of arrest. Television and cinema are largely responsible for spreading this knowledge. However, movies and television shows are not scholarly sources of information, and can often be misleading and incorrect in fact. Police are not required to inform persons under arrest of any rights, whatsoever, unless they question that person about the crime for which he is arrested after he is placed under arrest. If a person is questioned subsequent to arrest without being advised of his rights, any statements made by that person in response to those questions are not admissible in court as evidence in proving the criminal charges for which he was arrested. No other ramifications exist with regard to the informing of rights subsequent to arrest. However, some real life circumstances involving the reading of rights can be misinterpreted and lead to misconceptions. At times, the only evidence upon which a criminal charge is made is solely the response of the arrestee to questions posed by police subsequent to arrest. If improperly advised by police, these statements made by the arrestee are rendered inadmissible as evidence in court. In this situation, the state would have no remaining evidence to prove its case, and therefore, the charges would be thrown out. Miranda v. Arizona One of the most famous legal cases of all time, Miranda v. Arizona established that arrestees must be informed of their rights as guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in order for the Fifth Amendment to have any practical force. In other words, police must inform arrestees about their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves prior to questioning them about the crime for which they were arrested, and if they don’t, the process is said to have denied the arrestee his Fifth Amendment rights. In common parlance, these Fifth Amendment rights have come to be known as Miranda Rights, after this landmark case. In the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, the process of arrest and booking inherently intimidates arrestees and can act to coerce confessions against the will of the arrestee. The authors of the Constitution wished to avoid coercion of confession, just like many other inhumane procedures that are relics of old world European legal criminal process, such as arrest without due process. When Do Miranda Rights Take Effect? Only after a person is placed under arrest do Miranda Rights take effect. Prior to arrest, police have the right to deprive a person of liberty for a short period of time in which they can investigate and ask questions. This means police may question that person about his involvement in any crime prior to being under arrest but while being temporarily detained. An example of this concept is a situation in which a motorist is stopped for traffic violation, and then circumstances raise suspicion of criminal activity about which the police officer investigates and interrogates. Get Legal Representation If you or a loved one has made incriminating statements subsequent to arrest, protect your rights bestowed upon you by the Fifth Amendment. Contact or call the criminal defense attorneys at The Nahajski Firm at (206) 621-0500 for a free and confidential initial consultation.