We have all heard characters on TV being read their Miranda rights by the police. On television, suspects are read these rights by the officer just as the officer places the suspect’s hands behind their back and clicks the handcuffs into place. Because of this, many people understandably, yet mistakenly, believe that if the police officer did not read them the Miranda warning at the time they are handcuffed, then the officers have violated their rights. People may also mistakenly think that the entire case must be thrown out because of this violation!

There are very specific circumstances that need to exist for an officer to be required to read a person their Miranda warnings. If these circumstances do not exist, there has been no violation.

What are these circumstances? Miranda warnings are required when an officer (or a person acting on the government’s behalf) conducts a custodial interrogation. Thus, there are three important aspects that, if all exist, will trigger the officer’s duty to read you the warning:

• Conducted by Police Officer or Police Agent: the questions must be asked by a police officer or someone acting on behalf of law enforcement. In other words, if a private citizen (ex: your neighbor, your parent, or your significant other) places you in custody and interrogates you without reading you these rights, he or she has not committed a Miranda   They may have, however, committed a crime if they unlawfully detained you!
• Custodial: In custody. This sounds pretty straightforward, but this element is probably the most debated and argued in court. In some instances, it is obvious if someone is in custody, such as when a person is handcuffed, in the back of a patrol car, or in a jail cell.

Other times, however, it is not so clear.  A person may be considered to be in custody even if he or she has not been formally arrested. When determining whether or not a person is in custody, the question is whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would feel free to leave and end the questioning. Each case’s individual facts and circumstances must be carefully examined and evaluated to make this determination.

Furthermore, the interrogation must take place while the person is in custody. If a person, say, is in handcuffs in the back of the police car for some time, then taken out of the car, has the handcuffs removed, and is then interrogated, the questioning will not amount to a custodial interrogation.

A difficult thing in understanding the definition of “custodial” is that most people do not feel free to leave when talking to a police officer.  The standard is objective, not subjective.  This means that the judge evaluates only whether a “reasonable person” would have felt free to leave (objective) rather than if you, personally, felt free to leave in that moment (subjective).

• Interrogation: An officer conducts an interrogation when he asks questions or takes other police actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Again, this definition is not as straightforward as it may seem.  Factors a court may consider when deciding if the contact rose to the level of an interrogation are the length, place, and time of the interview, the police conduct, the nature of the questions, and other relevant circumstances. These are not always easy to apply.

For example, if an individual is handcuffed and in the back of a patrol car on their way to jail, and the officer makes a comment about the weather or asks an unrelated conversational question, and in response the handcuffed person confesses to a crime, an interrogation has not taken place.

If all three of these factors are not present, then there has been no violation by the police. There is substantial case law evaluating situations to determine if Miranda warnings were required to help courts determine if a statement was obtained lawfully or not.

So, what exactly are the Miranda warnings?

Before any custodial interrogation, a suspect must be warned that he or she has a right to remain silent, that anything he or she says can be used against him or her, that he or she has the right to the presence of an attorney before and during questioning, and that if he or she cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him or her before any questioning if he or she so desires. Miranda v Arizona (1966) 384 US 436, 479, 86 S Ct 1602.

Waiving Miranda

While it is their common practice to do so, an officer is not required to obtain an express and obvious waiver of your Miranda rights before interrogating you.  In other words, a person in custody does not need to say “I wish to answer the questions” or “I want to talk” in order for the questioning to begin and the statements to be admissible in court.

Instead, a waiver may be implied from the circumstances when, after a person has been advised of and states he or she understands their rights, the person freely submits to questioning. Thus, it is important that the person in custody be explicit about exercising their right to remain silent to prevent further questioning or the government arguing the waiver was implied.

What happens if an officer fails to read the Miranda warnings before a custodial interrogation?

The remedy is not a full dismissal of the charges. Instead, the suspect’s statements will be excluded from the prosecution’s case.  Thus, when the prosecutor puts on their evidence during a trial, they are not allowed to use a defendant’s statements to prove the prosecutor’s case.

However, while the statements that violate Miranda may not be used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, they may be used for impeachment as long as they were made voluntarily. This means that if the defendant takes the stand in his own defense, the prosecutor can challenge the credibility of the defendant by introducing his incriminating statements. Shockingly, in some cases the police intentionally choose not to read a person these warnings so that they can obtain the statements and a prosecutor can use them to impeach a defendant.

Conclusion

In summary, the police have to remind a person of their rights to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney only when they are conducting a custodial interrogation.  If the three factors are not present then the statements are admissible in court. The most important thing to remember, however, is that you always have these rights regardless of whether or not a police officer reminds you of them.

How Understanding the History, Science, and Protocol Can Help You Win Your Case

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious charge, but there are many opportunities for drivers to win their cases if they understand the field sobriety testing process. Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are any tests administered on the side of the road, while standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) are specific tests that have been researched for accuracy and must follow specific instructions and criteria. The three standardized tests are the HGN, the Walk-and-Turn, and the One-Leg Stand.

Before the early 1970s, officers used several different field sobriety tests to determine possible intoxication. Officers used their own set of instructions and clues, making it very difficult to determine how reliable these tests were. However, in 1975, the Southern California Research Institute came up with the three standardized tests that officers use today. These tests have been researched for accuracy and must follow specific instructions and criteria.

It’s important to remember that whether the test is standardized or not, they are not validated impairment indicators. They can not indicate driving impairment, alcohol impairment, nor drug impairment. The only thing they validate is a statistical probability that somebody’s blood alcohol concentration is at or above the legal limit. And it’s important to keep this in mind when the prosecutor or the officer tries to say that the tests indicate impairment.

Knowing the data and the science behind today’s standardized field sobriety tests can prove valuable for your case. Not only does this provide insight into the accuracy of these tests, but it’s also wise to know the information an officer might use during their testimony. Many officers refer to the San Diego Study as validation for the test they administer. In 1998, the San Diego DUI task force was recruited to help study the reliability of field sobriety tests. The study found that when the three standardized field sobriety tests were combined, they were 91% reliable in determining if a person was at or above the legal limit of .08. However, this study was not peer-reviewed, and there are issues with the reliability of these tests when you look at the number of false positives.

When exploring these tests, it’s important to understand the protocol, clues, and common errors that officers make. For example, if you have an officer who skipped one of the three SFST’s without a medical reason, oftentimes that is a red flag that requires further investigation. You also want to explore what tests were administered to determine the cause for an arrest because some officers like to throw in non-standardized tests like the Romberg, the ABC test, or the finger-to-nose test. These tests are not validated, and there is no way to determine how accurate they are.

In conclusion, when you understand the history, science, protocol, and common areas where officers make mistakes or simply don’t follow the rules, you can better identify false positives and score wins for your client. Research the data and studies available, understand the science behind these tests, and explore the three specific standardized tests: the HGN, Walk-and-Turn, and One-Leg Stand. Knowing this information can make a significant difference in your case.

Getting arrested for a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) can have severe consequences beyond legal penalties. One of the most significant challenges people face after a DUI arrest is the publication of their mugshot on various online platforms. 

In recent years, posting mugshots online has become increasingly common. Law enforcement agencies and private websites have made it a routine to post arrest photos of individuals who have been booked into jail. Fortunately, these days we don’t see as many law enforcement photos online, but private publications can access them by way of an open records request. Most mugshots available online are associated with these types of private companies.

This can be problematic for individuals who may have been arrested for a minor offense or whose charges were ultimately dropped. In such cases, the mugshot may still be available online, creating significant issues for the individual’s personal and professional life.

The Embarrassment of Online Mugshots

A DUI arrest is already a humiliating experience for anyone. However, the embarrassment is compounded when your mugshot is plastered all over the internet. Online mugshots are accessible to anyone with an internet connection, and it’s impossible to control who sees them. These photographs can make you feel exposed and vulnerable, leaving you feeling your reputation is ruined forever. If your case has been resolved in your favor, you may be able to petition to have the photo removed.

In-Person Jail Mail: Expect Unwanted Attention

Not all reputational damage happens online. After a DUI arrest, you can also expect to receive jail mail at the address on your driver’s license, meaning that everyone living at that address with you will also be aware of your arrest. It can be an uncomfortable experience for you and your family, making the situation even more distressing.

Don’t Talk About Your Case Online

Finally, it should go without saying that one should avoid posting anything about your case or commenting online regarding the charge or the agency. Until your case is closed and your lawyer gives you the green light, you should not be discussing your case on or offline.

The EHG Legal Team is obsessed with softening the blow to your reputation online and in life. We have spent nearly two decades helping professionals, students, parents, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, contractors, plumbers, and elected officials protect the future they have worked so hard to build. We look forward to helping you return to normal as quickly as possible.

It’s a situation that no one ever wants to be in – a car accident. Unfortunately for residents and drivers, this intersection has become a hot spot for traffic accidents. Over the years, many residents have expressed their concerns about the dangerous intersection and the need for immediate action.

Citing issues such as poor visibility, confusing traffic patterns, and a lack of proper signage, many have called for the county to take action to improve safety at the intersection, such as adding more street lights, improving road markings, and increasing police presence.

The Causes of Accidents at Ponce De Leon and Artwood Road

Several factors contribute to the high incidence of traffic accidents at this intersection. One of the most significant is the heavy traffic volume. Ponce De Leon and Artwood Road are both major thoroughfares in Atlanta, and they intersect in a heavily populated area. As a result, there are always numerous cars, trucks, and buses jockeying for position, which increases the risk of collisions.

Another contributing factor is the layout of the intersection. It’s a complex intersection with multiple lanes, a blind turn, a stoplight, and a crosswalk, making it difficult to navigate. Bad weather makes it all the more dangerous. Many drivers become confused, which leads to mistakes and collisions.

Finally, speed is also a major factor in accidents at this intersection. Drivers often exceed the posted speed limit, reducing their reaction time and increasing any collision’s severity.

Specifically, residents have complained about the following:

• Artwood needs to be widened to accommodate simultaneous left and right turns onto Ponce. Drivers currently make an unofficial lane, which is dangerous and could lead to accidents.
• The traffic light at the intersection is not sufficient for safe turning onto Artwood. Drivers traveling east on Ponce have poor visibility and need a leading green arrow to turn left safely onto Artwood.
• Drivers often speed on Ponce, and there is a curve west of the intersection. Although there are signs, the light can still be a surprise. Rumble strips could alert drivers, and the DOT should replace the curve signs that were removed during construction.
• The historic railroad bridge over Ponce just past the Artwood intersection is problematic. The signage for its low clearance is not sufficient, and large trucks often divert onto Artwood, leading to accidents.
• The lights at Artwood and Scott/Ponce fork are not coordinated, leading to frustrating and dangerous situations for drivers during heavy traffic.
• Georgia Power should have a record of how often the intersection’s power poles have been damaged or taken out due to accidents.

The Consequences of Accidents at Ponce De Leon and Artwood Road

The consequences of an accident at this intersection can be severe. Injuries can range from minor to life-threatening, and property damage can be extensive. Moreover, the financial costs associated with an accident can be staggering. Medical bills, car repairs, and lost wages can quickly add up, leaving victims struggling to recover physically and financially.

In response to these concerns, the county has initiated several measures to improve safety at the intersection. One such measure includes the installation of a pedestrian island to help reduce the risk of pedestrian accidents.

Despite these efforts, accidents continue to occur, causing frustration and concern among residents. Some have even taken to social media to express their displeasure, sharing photos and videos of accidents as they happen.