What happens if I was not read my Miranda rights in Utah?
On
television, police officers customarily begin reading suspects their
Miranda rights as the handcuffs are being placed on their wrists.
In the real world, things work differently.
A
police officer's failure to read the Miranda rights may be one of the
most critical facts in developing a defense strategy for a Utah
criminal case. Or it may turn out to be an insignificant distraction.
To understand how an officer's failure to read the Miranda rights may
affect your case, it is vital to have the assistance of an experienced
criminal defense attorney.
Contact us today to schedule confidential consultation with Utah criminal lawyer Stephen Howard.
Purposes of the Miranda Rights in a Utah Criminal Defense Case
The
Miranda warnings are based on the United States Constitution's
Fifth
Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the privilege against
self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). This right
has
been interpreted as preventing a defendant in a criminal case from
being required to testify or give evidence against himself or herself.
The Miranda warnings were established by the United
States Supreme Court in a case entitled
Miranda v. Arizona
in 1966. These
warnings are intended to notify a criminal suspect of his or her
constitutional rights, and allow the person the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether to invoke those rights.
A typical version of the
Miranda warnings is as follows: "You have the right to remain
silent. Anything you say can and
will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak
to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at
government expense."
When Miranda Warnings Must Be Given
But what happens if you are arrested and police do not read you your
Miranda rights? That depends on the specific circumstances of
your case. In some cases, a police officer's failure to read
Miranda warnings can result in all charges being dismissed.
In other cases, it may mean nothing.
The
requirement to give the Miranda warnings is triggered when police
engage in a custodial interrogation. This means that the police must be
asking questions relating to the investigation of the crime, and that
ther person being questioned must be in custody. If police question a
suspect, witness, or other individual who is not in custody, Miranda
warnings are not required.
The question of when a person is
"in custody" is not always black-and-white. A person walking freely
down the street would not be considered to be in custody for
purposes of Miranda. A person who is handcuffed and going through the
booking process in jail would clearly be in custody. But what about a
person who is sitting in the back of a police patrol car to keep warm?
What about a person who appears voluntarily at a police station for an
interview?
Because there are many grey areas in determining
when a person is in custody, many police officers will err on the side
of caution and give the Miranda warnings even when they may not be
technically required by law.
Consequences of Failing to Give Miranda Warnings
A
police officer's failure to give the Miranda warnings when required can
result in evidence being suppressed. A confession or other statements
made by a defendant in violation of Miranda may be suppressed. Evidence
obtained by police as a result of the Miranda violation may also be
suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree." When a court orders
evidence suppressed, that evidence can no longer be used by the
prosecutor at trial.
In
order to obtain a suppression order, a defendant must first file a
motion to suppress. Most often, the court will hold an evidentiary
hearing where both the defense and the prosecutor will be allowed to
present witnesses and testimony on the question of whether statements
were made by the
defendant in the context of a custodial interrogation, and whether the
police failed to give the required Miranda warnings prior to the point
that the defendant made the statements.
Finding a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney in Salt Lake City

Stephen Howard is an experienced
criminal
defense lawyer based in Salt Lake City and practicing
throughout Utah. He has achieved dismissals for clients on
successful motions to suppress, as well as not
guilty verdicts or dismissals on cases including aggravated
robbery,
burglary,
forgery,
theft,
DUI's,
drug charges, and
more.
If you are facing criminal charges in Utah, you deserve to have an
experienced criminal attorney on your side.
Contact us now to schedule
you initial consultation.