Replies

Custodial detention: Was the subject free to leave? NO. Did the officer ask him anything that would or might lead to arrest? The subject did not know one way or the other. Did the officer place the subject in handcuffs and in the back seat of a police car? Yes Totality of the circumstances would lead the subject to believe he was not free to leave therefore it was CUSTODIAL DETENTION.

First of all, we only have one version of facts. It is foolish to take the facts given by a party filing a lawsuit at face value.

Second, Miranda was imposed (with no grounds in the Constitution) as a "prophylactic" to prevent the use of statements in Court. Even from the Plaintiff's version of facts, the questioning did not result in a prosecution.

I'm not saying that everything that the Officer did was OK. I am saying that we don't know. I am also saying that people invoke Miranda like a magic Talisman when in the majority of situations it doesn't even apply.

If you are/were a cop, you would know that.

Hmmm? well when police pull you out of you car and handcuff you, and you’re placed in the back of a cop car, you are in deed under arrest. It’s nice to know that some people like to believe that there are “exceptions” to one’s RIGHTS. Perhaps you should actualy READ the miranda warning. Read the definition of “Arrest”. Maybe even READ the Second Amd. for the Constitution of the United States of America, you know the part that specifically states “Shall NOT be infringed”. Too many cowardly sissys wearing badges like to feel they are above the law, and too many idiot lawyers like to think people are actually ignorant of their rights, and like to use legal terms like “exceptions”. People don’t need to take a test to “practice” law, to actually “know” the law. Ok, please cite the specific portion of the Constitution that contains the Miranda warning. Where did the Framers insert the Miranda warning in the text? And why did it take Earl Warren to find it?