Miranda warnings - often misunderstood

Miranda warnings are often misunderstood. In general, these rights are explained, if a police officer places under arrest. They have their beginning in the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In general, you should be aware that:

* You have the right to remain silent;

* If you waive this right, what you say can be used in court against you;

* You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have a present before answering questions;

* If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided at state expense.

What is often misunderstood, if such rights, you must explain. In explaining the rule, a police officer only to those rights for you if you are subjected to "custodial interrogations has been." Of course, if you were put under arrest, these rights must be explained before each debate. Some situations are indeed specific and clearly can not stop no penalty or, as the daily traffic. In general, leave when you're free, and ends with the police officer, he will not be at liberty, and do not require Miranda warnings.

If the official is not the Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation issue, all instructions can be deleted from admission process. This includes statements by the use as evidence. Other evidence obtained as a result of side information can also be excluded

---

Hotmail: อีเมลที่เชื่อถือได้ซึ่งมาพร้อมกับการป้องกันอีเมลขยะที่มีประสิทธิภาพของ Microsoft ลงทะเบียนเดี๋ยวนี้