Where does the COnstitution say the cops have to READ YOU your "Miranda" rights?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They don't have to read them to you. However, any information they get from you cannot be used as evidence in court until you have been read your rights.

This is a valid point.

But it still doesn't answer the more basic question: WHY can't the cops use the info they get from you in court, simply because they haven't READ YOUR RIGHTS TO YOU? If they have scrupulously obeyed what the Constitution actually says, not coerced you, etc., and you announce you know where the murder weapon is and they use your tip to find it... why can they not use the fact in court that you knew where the weapon was, to support their case that you are the murderer?

The Constitution requires that you must have the right to remain silent and all the rest... as it should. But where does it say those rights must be explained to you by the police? As I said in the OP, there is no other instance where cops must explain the law to you.

Cops know liberals slept through school and are not aware of their rights, so they give them a refresher course before they admit to being the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THe phrase was 'in the constituton' not in the stack of books knowns as case law.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The short answer is that a bunch of judges thought that each person should be aware of their constitutional rights when accused of a crime. It is not in the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The short answer is that a bunch of judges thought that each person should be aware of their constitutional rights when accused of a crime. It is not in the constitution.

More wrongheaded ignorance from the right.

 

[Jackson]

The two dumbest things you can do when stopped by a Cop:

1. Volunteer Information
2. Consent to Search

The 4th Amendment says that a Search Warrant signed by a judge is need to search your premisses, why does anyone agree to a search? You trust the Cops that much? I don't.

The 5th Amendment is there to protect you from incriminating yourself. So what you need to do when a Police Officer questions you is:

a. Shut up.
b. Keep shutting up.
c. Shut up some more.

Stop helping the Cops f*ck you over, they're not your friends.

I disagree. You follow all the directions from the police officer. If you have nothing to hide, let them search. I have a small vacuum sweeper in my car. I would ask him to sweep the floors while he is looking around.

 

[bucs90]

So here's the deal.

Cops can interrogate you all they want without Miranda. They just can't use it against you. The Boston Bomber....they already had plenty of evidence BEFORE interrogation to hang his ass. They wanted to know if more attacks were coming. They can interrogate his ass all day without Miranda....as long as they don't use anything they get from it against HIM in court.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The short answer is that a bunch of judges thought that each person should be aware of their constitutional rights when accused of a crime. It is not in the constitution.

And the judges' authority to create new law from the bench is found where?

 

[J.E.D]

The two dumbest things you can do when stopped by a Cop:

1. Volunteer Information
2. Consent to Search

The 4th Amendment says that a Search Warrant signed by a judge is need to search your premisses, why does anyone agree to a search? You trust the Cops that much? I don't.

The 5th Amendment is there to protect you from incriminating yourself. So what you need to do when a Police Officer questions you is:

a. Shut up.
b. Keep shutting up.
c. Shut up some more.

Stop helping the Cops f*ck you over, they're not your friends.

They can search without consent if there is reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, which leads to probable cause to detain you.

At that point, any area that you're in can be searched 'within arms reach', and without a warrant. This applies to both automobiles and dwellings.

There is also the 'plain view' exception; which means that anything seen by a LEO that is illegal, or suspected of being illegal, can be taken as evidence and used as probable cause to detain. Like, a bag of drugs sitting in plain sight when a driver is pulled over.

At least, that's what I remember from criminal justice class. I could be fuzzy on some of that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A perp must be Mirandized prior to custodial interrogation in order for the perp's words to be admissible. This was created by the Court as a protection against coerced confessions and applies anytime that a perp is (1) in custody and (2) there is an action by the state agent reasonably calculated to elicit information.

You have a right against self incrimination. You have a right to not have a confession beaten out of you. In order to make your constitutional rights meaningful the Court created the Miranda Rule. It effectuates the original intent of the Framers.

Only rights I know of that other people are expected to inform you of in order for you to have them. Everything else, it's YOUR responsibility to know what your rights are.

 

[Avatar4321]

It doesn't but case law does