If you ask a police person a question about your rights can they lie? Are they allowed to remain silent when you ask them a question about your rights?
-
Even if they can't deliberately lie, they're not legal scholars so their answer may just be wrong. Assuming this is in the US, they're only required to read you the standard Miranda rights. Everything beyond that is up to you.– BarmarCommented Apr 15 at 16:13
-
2@Jen Right. What I meant is they're not expected to do anything beyond reading the Miranda rights.– BarmarCommented Apr 15 at 16:32
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Lying would violate Miranda
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) demands in the holding:
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
[...]
If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease
[...]
If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.
Asking questions about your rights indicates that you have not been properly and "clearly informed" as the court held in Miranda. Compare United States v. Garibay 143 F.3d 534 (9th Cir. 1998), where someone unable to comprehend English was found to have had his rights violated for signing a waiver he did not understand. The court held that he was not properly informed.
Miranda is not a constitutional right!
Under Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), Miranda is not a constitutional right, and not always required. In fact the court wrote:
A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim. Pp. 4–16.
[...] (1) In Miranda, the Court concluded that additional procedural protections were necessary to prevent the violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when suspects who are in custody are interrogated by the police. Miranda imposed a set of prophylactic rules requiring that custodial interrogation be preceded by now-familiar warnings and disallowing the use of statements obtained in violation of these new rules by the prosecution in its case-inchief. 384 U. S., at 444, 479. Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation. That makes sense, as an un-Mirandized suspect in custody may make self-incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion. The Miranda Court stated that the Constitution did not itself require “adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process” and that its decision “in no way create[d] a constitutional straitjacket.” Id., at 467. Since Miranda, the Court has repeatedly described Miranda rules as “prophylactic.” Pp. 4–7
[...]
Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation. That makes sense, as an un-Mirandized suspect in custody may make self-incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion.
Not questioning is allowable
The Police might say nothing at all and that would be allowable. No right is broken by being not questioned.
-
If you ask questions about your rights that police refuse to answer does it still mean you have not understood these rights as they have been read to you? In effect leaving you un-mirandad? Commented May 2 at 11:27
-
@NeilMeyer if you have not been mirandaed, then they have not to read you your rights. They don't have to answer you though, see Vega.– TrishCommented May 2 at 19:46