In her case,I am sure the only reason she was released without additional charges like "suspicion of DUI/DUD's is because she is a lawyer licensed to practice law in NJ,and a member of a big firm. The cops knew anything they tried would come back on them. If she had been a waitress,they would have charged her with something else and then offered to drop the charges if she would sign off on not being mistreated.

You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.

Wrong once again. You have them all the time. That's why they are called "RIGHTS" instead of "privileges".

You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.

Really? You do not have right to remain silent until you get arrested?

What if you are mute? Or unable to speak out of fear?

"What if you are mute?"

All mutes in New Jersey are subject to arrest.

"Or unable to speak out of fear?"

If you're so fearful that you can't speak, you must have done something wrong. Therefore, you are subject to arrest.

You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.

Correction: You can remain silent but the right to remain silent is only protected after you're arrested.

You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.

The right exists. The duty to inform one of the right kicks in after the detention becomes custodial.

Correction: You can remain silent but the right to remain silent is only protected after you're arrested.

Correction: you've got it wrong. The duty to inform one of the right to remain silent kicks in when the detention becomes custodial.

"The duty to inform one of the right to remain silent kicks in when the detention becomes custodial."

True. But your right to remain silent is a protected right even if you're not informed.

You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.

That's completely wrong. And funny!

If you're so fearful that you can't speak, you must have done something wrong. Therefore, you are subject to arrest.

LOL!!!

So everyone who's afraid is subject to arrest!! Good one!

Surely you're being sarcastic! Not even you could be this stupid.

Correction: You can remain silent but the right to remain silent is only protected after you're arrested.

Wrong again.

Any "rights" not protected are not rights. Okay?

And the 5th Amendment says nothing about any requirement of arrest or detainment.

Any "rights" not protected are not rights.

Not sure what you mean here - seems to me that many natural rights are not only not defended by government but are actively violated by government (e.g., the natural rights to grow, sell, buy, and use pot).

"Any "rights" not protected are not rights. Okay? "

Sure they are. They're unprotected rights.

Otherwise, by protecting a right you're establishing that right. And our government doesn't establish rights.

But your right to remain silent is a protected right even if you're not informed.

The right to remain silent is protect from birth to death, except upon a grant of immunity.

It is not the right to remain silent that is affected by providing, or failing to provide, Miranda warnings. The ability of the government to use anything said, as evidence against the speaker, is affected.

"seems to me that many natural rights are not only not defended by government but are actively violated by government (e.g., the natural rights to grow, sell, buy, and use pot)."

The government does not protect your right to grow pot. Because of that, the government may pass laws against the growing of pot. They did.

And our government doesn't establish rights.

Miranda rights were created by the government.

"The right to remain silent is protect from birth to death, except upon a grant of immunity."

Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations. You can remain silent, but then you're going to jail until they can figure out who you are.

Not sure what you mean here - seems to me that many natural rights are not only not defended by government but are actively violated by government (e.g., the natural rights to grow, sell, buy, and use pot).

There are, in fact, actually different kinds of rights.

Constitutionally protected rights: Rights protected by the Constitution, aka right to remain silent, freedom of speech, etc. Often these rights are spelled with a capital R.

Statutory rights: These are rights not in the Constitution, but instead established by law. These rights can be created and removed by legislation.

Natural rights: These are rights considered to be given by God, and not within the authority of any man to remove, at least unilaterally. The DoI mentions "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as rights endowed by our Creator. Some would say growing & using cannabis, or otherwise doing what we wish to our own bodies would fall into this category. Arguably these rights are highest of all as even Constitutionally protected rights can be removed via the Amendment process.

Moral rights: The right to behave in a certain way in a context of moral justice. I.e. breaking into a neighbor's home to steal back something he stole from you, even if no other recourse is available. (Obviously this would almost always conflict any legal/statutory rights).

In the context of this discussion, we're talking about the right to remain silent as a Constitutionally protected right.

Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations.

She provided the required documents.

She's not required to vocalize her identity or engage in conversation with a cop.

"While you're looking for that, do you know why you're being pulled over tonight?" the trooper asked her, according to the tape. She claims she provided the documents but didn't respond.

I got pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt a few years back and when the female officer asked me that same question I replied : "I think that you are supposed to tell me why"

She wasn't bothered at all by my answer and I later explained that I didn't want to incriminate myself if she was pulling me over for something else.

Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations. You can remain silent, but then you're going to jail until they can figure out who you are.

The woman in this case did ID herself. She handed her papers over to the police. They arrested her for not being conversational. If the facts are as mentioned above, she should win and the cops should get big time reprimanded.

Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations. You can remain silent, but then you're going to jail until they can figure out who you are

The traffic stop is special in regard to that because everyone driving is required to have and be able to provide a valid drivers license and registration.

From the story as written above its obvious he had no valid reason to arrest her.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?" is a rhetorical question, not a serious one.

I know its a standard question.

She wasn't bothered at all by my answer and I later explained that I didn't want to incriminate myself if she was pulling me over for something else.

That's exactly why they ask that. They want the driver to incriminate themselves. It goes into their report and gets mentioned to the traffic judge as a confession of wrongdoing. Or at least it can be. I'm sure it's standard training for cops when they do routine traffic stops.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the cop. Let them say why you were stopped, and don't affirm or deny anything they say you were doing. Even by denying it, you may inadvertently admit you were at the location where he thinks you did something wrong, and he may not even be sure he's got the right car.

Unless you want to try to sweet talk your way into a warning, which, if you happen to be a hot blond bombshell, could have merit. But legally, there's no requirement to discuss anything.

"Miranda rights were created by the government."

The rights always existed, but most people were unaware of them. As a result of the court case by the same name, law enforcement is now required to tell you about these rights after your arrest and before they question you. You can then claim those rights or waive them.

"From the story as written above its obvious he had no valid reason to arrest her."

That's way it turned out, yes.

But her refusal to talk was suspicious. The cop thought so. So he played it safe and took her in.

I don't understand the people who want to fuck with the cops. When they end up getting arrested, I'm sorry, they had it coming. No sympathy for them, even if they were in the right.

But her refusal to talk was suspicious. The cop thought so.

Seriously?

What is "suspicious" about not wishing to have a conversation with a cop?

I don't understand the people who want to fuck with the cops.

Yet in this case, the woman was not "fucking with the cops".

She did exactly what was legally required.

No more - no less.

"What is "suspicious" about not wishing to have a conversation with a cop?"

Seriously?

By the way, no one is talking about a "conversation" except you and your strawman buddy. She wouldn't say anything. That's odd. Especially when cooperation and being polite may get you out of a ticket.

When they end up getting arrested, I'm sorry, they had it coming. No sympathy for them, even if they were in the right.

Well, thank you for this refreshing blast of honesty.

She wouldn't say anything. That's odd. Especially when cooperation and being polite may get you out of a ticket.

The fact is, a cop's "hunch" is not and never has been recognized as legit probable cause to arrest people.

Those cops who rely on the law for such decisions fair much better with community relations than do cops who consider themselves to be the law.

She wouldn't say anything. That's odd.

There's nothing "odd" about that.

She identified herself - there is no requirement to talk to a cop.

The rights always existed, but most people were unaware of them.

The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona. It is one example of the vast body of court made law.

It operates as a sanction against government authorities rendering any information gained during an interrogation absent a warning in compliance with specific guidelines stated for the first time in the Miranda opinion, inadmissable against the accused.

It created a rule of criminal procedure regarding admissibility which did not previously exist.

Prior to the announcement of the rule in Miranda, no such rule existed.

Under your interpretation, the right to Miranda warnings always existed, and could have been used to overturn every conviction wrongfully obtained through the use of statements obtained without a Miranda warning which nobody had ever heard of.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

U.S. Supreme Court

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

At 445:

The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well which were admitted at their trials. They all thus share salient features -- incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.

At 478-79:

To summarize, we hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.

At 481:

In announcing these principles, we are not unmindful of the burdens which law enforcement officials must bear, often under trying circumstances. We also fully recognize the obligation of all citizens to aid in enforcing the criminal laws. This Court, while protecting individual rights, has always given ample latitude to law enforcement agencies in the legitimate exercise of their duties. The limits we have placed on the interrogation process should not constitute an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement. As we have noted, our decision does not in any way preclude police from carrying out their traditional investigatory functions. Although confessions may play an important role in some convictions, the cases before us present graphic examples of the overstatement of the "need" for confessions. In each case, authorities conducted interrogations ranging up to five days in duration despite the presence, through standard investigating practices, of considerable evidence against each defendant.

The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona.

You didn't read the decision, SFB.

"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."

But her refusal to talk was suspicious.

She should have said, "Oink, oink" and be done with it.

She wasn't bothered at all by my answer and I later explained that I didn't want to incriminate myself if she was pulling me over for something else.

That's exactly why pointed questions are asked "do you know why I stopped you"? For oral admissions.

It's Vehicle & Traffic Stop 101

She should have said, "Oink, oink" and be done with it.

Put her in the patrol car with the heavy duty suspension.

Now there's one who can say "Oink, oink" and get away with it.

Fred's looking for his hand lotion.

Put her in the patrol car with the heavy duty suspension.

Typical moronic response.

She's overweight so she must be guilty of something, right?

She was under no obligation to speak with the cop.

She showed the pertinent information and clammed up.

Which is what anyone should do.

Typical moronic response.

Fred blurted out "Oink, oink" as a matter of reflex. Don't be so hard on him.

You didn't read the decision, SFB.

"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."

I did read the opinion, SFB. You are too stupid to understand what you read. Also, you did not read the preceding circuit court opinions which you cite. In both cases, the FBI gave a non-Miranda compliant warning in accordance with what was then FBI policy. The evidence was upheld as lawfully obtained and the court in Westover noted that "as the law now stands, there is no automatic rule of exclusion which will bar use of such a confession...."

Miranda created an automatic rule of exclusion which had not previously existed. It created specific minimum mandatory guidelines for a mandatory warning, with compliance failure resulting in exclusion of the obtained evidence.

That the FBI voluntarily issued some form of warning (not meeting the Miranda standard) does not require all (or any) of law enforcement to issue any warning, nor does it make the FBI abbreviated warning compliant with the Miranda standard. Miranda cites the FBI warning only to show that a form of warning already existed, and was being used, within one element of the law enforcement community.

Jackson and Westover noted the then-standard FBI warnings voluntarily given by the FBI agents to comply with FBI policy, but did not make such warnings, much less Miranda warnings, compulsory upon anybody, and imposed no automatic sanction against the government if said warning was omitted.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/337/136/227932/

Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964)

Danaher, Circuit Judge

On September 8, 1961, the United States Commissioner issued a warrant for the arrest of the appellant on a felony-murder charge. On September 15, 1961, at 3:20 A.M., an agent of the F.B.I. arrested the appellant at Staten Island, New York. The F.B.I. agent immediately advised the appellant "that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make would be used against him in a court of law, and that he was entitled to an attorney."

[...]

We conclude that no rule of law required the exclusion of this appellant's confession, voluntarily made, after he had been warned by the F.B.I., the police and the United States Commissioner acting pursuant to Rule 40(b). He had not requested that counsel be appointed; he had retained no lawyer; that one was not then appointed for him denied him no right; and as the law now stands, there is no automatic rule of exclusion which will bar use of such a confession by an accused who has no lawyer, under circumstances such as appear on the record before us.

As noted in this pre-Miranda case, there was no applicable automatic rule of exclusion.

Fahy, Circuit Judge, dissenting

Upon their arrival at the Detention Headquarters they asked if they could speak to appellant, and were taken to a small room off the prisoners' corridor. A few minutes later appellant was brought to this room. We have no record of what occurred, but the officers testified that they identified themselves, told appellant they were investigating the death of Tony Philip Lee with which he was charged, and that he did not have to talk to them if he did not wish to do so. According to their further testimony appellant "sat there for a few moments and then he said he would like to tell us about it," and made his detailed confession.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/342/684/248369/

Westover v U.S., 342 .F2d 684 (9th Cir. 1965)

At about 11:30 a. m. on March 21, the F.B.I. agents were told that the appellant was available, in a room in the city jail. He had been interrogated, during the forenoon, by the police with regard to the local robberies. Three F.B.I. agents conducted the F.B.I. interview. No Kansas City policeman was present at the interview. The F.B.I. agents advised the appellant that he did not have to make a statement; that any statement that he made could be used against him in a court of law; that he had the right to consult an attorney. The agents made no threats or promises to the appellant. The appellant made detailed statements as to how he had committed the two Sacramento robberies for which he was later indicted and tried. His statements were written down in long-hand by one of the agents, as they were made, a separate statement being made for each of the robberies for convenience of filing.

[...]

The statements above discussed were offered and received in evidence at the appellant's trial. He now urges that they should have been excluded, sua sponte by the court, even though appellant's counsel at the trial did not object to their admission. He says that the doctrines of the cases of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S. Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819; Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410, 69 S. Ct. 170, 93 L. Ed. 100; Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S. Ct. 1356, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1479; and Ginoza v. United States, CA 9, 279 F.2d 616, and Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the exclusion of the appellant's confessions.

The precedents cited by the appellant have no direct application to the facts of this case, since the appellant had not been arrested by federal officers and was not in their custody at the time he made the statements, nor, as we shall see, until eleven days thereafter. The appellant, however, urges that, even if a prisoner is in state custody, the McNabb exclusionary rule may exclude a confession made to federal agents if there is between the state and federal agents a cooperative "working arrangement" of a kind which makes the federal agents responsible for illegal detention by the state agents.

The court found no abuses in the admission into evidence of the confession.

I did read the opinion

Then you're simply a liar, stumbling over yourself in full retreat.

The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935.

Then you're simply a liar, stumbling over yourself in full retreat.

I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.

The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona.

"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."

SFB

"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."

I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.

1. The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona.

2. Miranda is the precedent setting case

"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."

Furtively trying to move the goalpost, SFB.

"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."

I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.

Time for more dishonest spam, SFB?

"It created a rule of criminal procedure regarding admissibility which did not previously exist."

That was the penalty for not advising the suspect of his rights.

As I said before, those rights already existed. Miranda simply required law enforcement to remind the suspect of those rights. Miranda did not create any rights.