Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Miranda rights

Many people incorrectly believe that police must always provide Miranda warnings when they arrest someone. This is not true, and the absence of such warnings does not invalidate an arrest.

Police need only give Miranda warnings when they are about to question someone in their custody in a way that calls for responses which would incriminate the person they are questioning. Thus, if the police don't question someone they have arrested, Miranda is completely irrelevant to his case.

Even if police to question someone who is in custody without first giving Miranda warnings, the only consequence is that the prosecutor will be unable to use the suspect's responses -- or most information the police obtain as a result of those responses -- against him at trial. In most cases, these responses will be just a small part of the potential evidence available, and the prosecutor will still be able to make his case without using the tainted statements.

Nothing you have said suggests that you were questioned at all. Depending upon what evidence the police had available when they took you into custody, it is quite likely that there was no reason to question you. It may be that they did question you; if this is the case, you may be able to have your responses excluded from evidence when and if your case goes to trial. This is no guarantee that you will be acquitted, however.

You need to get a lawyer, and you need to discuss with him whether there has been a Miranda violation and whether you have a good defense based upon the Miranda decision. I'm afraid I can't offer you much reason to be optimistic, but if I had more facts I might have something more encouraging to tell you.

Re: Miranda rights

The failure to read your miranda rights is irrelevent. YOu are eligible for prop 36 or DEJ. There may be search issue. Why did they search you? Where were the drugs found?