Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: police video tape statement

A Miranda warning is only necessary when police question a suspect who is in custody. (Note that "in custody" has a specific legal meaning which is somewhat different from its meaning in ordinary conversation). Statements the defendant makes on his own -- i.e., not in response to questions from the police -- are not covered.

Even where a warning is required, the failure to give one does not entitle the defendant to an automatic dismissal. It merely prevents the prosecution from using against the defendant any answers he gave to questions that should have been preceded by the warning. Other evidence can still be used, and will often be enough to support a conviction.

Note also that the absence of a Miranda warning on tape is not proof that the police failed to give one. It is very common for police to Mirandize a suspect in the field and then bring him to the station for a videotaped interview. A Miranda warning that was given before the cameras started rolling is just as valid as one given after, though it may be harder to prove.

Re: police video tape statement

Can it be? Sure, anything can happen.

Will it be? Not likely, as your complaint would support a suppression motion over use of a confession, but the charge could still be prosecuted with other facts. What happens depends upon the facts, evidence, witness credibility, and effectiveness of your attorney in the hearing. Feel free to contact me if you need representation, if the case is in SoCal.