| Minnesota Miranda Rights |
|
Most people have heard or are familiar with the following statement: “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you”. The unfortunate fact is most people misunderstand why and/or when the Miranda Warning is given and what those rights truly mean. The following information is offered for the sole purpose of informing individuals of the basic understanding of Minnesota Miranda Rights. Only those individuals who have studied the law can accurately understand what the Miranda Warning is truly all about. It is very important that you contact and experienced attorney who can help you fully understand your Constitutional rights. An individual’s ‘Miranda Rights’ derive from some of the rights contained in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states: ‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’. Careful reading of the Fifth Amendment shows that people have the right against self-incrimination when facing a crime, often referred to as ‘pleading the fifth’. The “Miranda Warning” came about as a result of the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda signed a confession without knowing he had the right to remain silent and to not talk to the police officers as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. The police did not tell Miranda of this Constitutional right before they started asking him questions and having him sign his confession. Miranda was found guilty based only on his signed confession. The Supreme Court reversed Miranda’s conviction, stating: ‘the prosecution may not use statements… stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination’. (Miranda, 1966) The Supreme Court ruling led to the creation of the ‘Miranda Warning’ and the important first line: ‘You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you in a court of law’
Individuals have the right to an attorney under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense’ The Supreme Court held in Brewer v. Williams (1977) that people are entitled to the have help from an attorney when they are faced with judicial proceedings or being interrogated by the government (Brewer, 1977). Judicial proceedings are simply appearances before a judge or confinement as ordered by the court. The Supreme Court holding codified the rest of the ‘Miranda Warning’: ‘…you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you’ IMPORTANT NOTE: The court does not necessarily have to appoint an attorney for free. In Minnesota judges will appoint a public defender only if you qualify and you will still likely have to pay some legal expenses.
Miranda Rights only apply once three (3) things have happened: (1) you must be in custody; (2) police must be interrogating you; and (3) you must have asserted you Miranda Rights. Generally, a person is in custody if police have significantly deprived your freedom of actions, or rather, the have put you in a position were you feel you couldn’t just leave if you wanted to and police are questioning you. Your ‘Miranda Rights’ don’t apply if you answer any questions to the officer, or initiate a conversation prior to being read your ‘Miranda Warning’. Finally, you have to have asserted your ‘Miranda Rights’ for them to apply. This means you have to clearly and verbally tell the police that you wish to remain silent and contact an attorney.
Most people are not given the ‘Miranda Warning’ when they are initially stopped and/or detained for a DWI and the police don’t necessarily have to. This is because of the nature of legal rules and guidelines involved in a DWI. Most officers will simply ask you if you’ve had anything to drink and your Constitutional rights will not protect any answer you give at that point. The officers may not even give you the ‘Miranda Warning’ even when they bring you to a police station or hospital for testing. They don’t have to because they are following their procedures that allow them to detain you for suspicion of DWI and to take you to a police station or hospital to have you submit to an evidentiary test. Often times people make the mistake of taking to the officers during the ride and those statements can be used against you because they aren’t interrogating you AND you did clearly and verbally assert you rights. At Gerald Miller and Associates, our advice to you if you have been stopped for a DWI is simply this: be polite, respectful and cooperative with the officers, but don’t volunteer any information relating to drinking or driving, and assert your rights to remain silent and to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. Our experienced attornies will explain your legal rights to you and help you through these difficult and intimidating situations.
|