Can a DUI arrest be dismissed if the arresting officer did not read the driver his Miranda rights???
The officer admitted not advising the driver of his Miranda rights after his arrest and processing. A legal reference would be appreciated for the state of Arizona. ...
The officer admitted not advising the driver of his Miranda rights after his arrest and processing. A legal reference would be appreciated for the state of Arizona.
Miranda Warnings are used to protect the individual against self incrimination. Unless the Officer asked something that he didn't already know, then it doesn't pertain. Voluntary statements can be admitted into evidence.
With a good lawyer, the defendant would be acquitted.
Yes, it could conceivably be dismissed, and the state wouldn't matter except in so far that certain states tend to have stricter judges than others.
Perhaps however the driver should behave like a man and face the consequences of his actions instead of attempting to weasel his way out of his responsibilities on a technicality? Just a thought.
Yes, but the chances are low. Everyone has heard of Miranda rights, telling the judge you didn't know your rights rarely holds up.
"I wasn't read my rights" is a lame defense, it does not address the problem at hand, that someone was driving under influence, which is a crime. Anything you told the officers will likely have less weight in court, or be thrown out, but the whole case is likely to proceed. They will still have evidence via police car footage or breathalizer tests.
No Miranda rights are required unless two elements are satisfied, Custody and Interrogation. All questioning leading up to the arrest is perfectly legal without Miranda advisement. Even after arrest, Miranda is only required if interrogation is to proceed, to include performing field sobriety tests at the station after arrest.
I hardly ever read Miranda after arrest for DUI, because at that point, I asked all questions regarding alcohol consumption and the like, they have performed the tests, and I have gathered needed evidence.
The only questions after arrest involve stuff like your address and other identifying info.
If any interrogation to happen after arrest and no Miranda advisement was given, only the statement obtained as a result would be in-admissable. The arrest would still stand.
edit:
You also don't have to be read Miranda before taking the breath or blood test, after being placed in custody. In California you don't even have the right to a lawyer before deciding which test to take, or during the test. (23612 VC)
The first two posters are way off.
The officer doesn't have to read you your miranda rights in 90% of arrests. Miranda only applies when you are in custody and are being asked guilt seeking questions. Even if an officer does ask the questions and miranda is not advised, only the answers are thrown out of court, not the entire arrest.
All the other evdience will be allowed into court, the stop, the officer's observations, the field sobriety, the BAC test, ect.
The short answer is no but let me explain farther. Once I arrest someone & I need to find out more information about the person or situation they're in, I need to advise the person of their rights. With a DUI, I saw them driving odd, smelled alcohol, blood shot eyes, elusive answers, slurred speech, failed sobriety test, etc. All of those things can be determined prior to placing them under arrest. Once I arrest them, why do I necessarily need to read them their rights? I have nothing else to try & figure out.
I've made dozens of DUI arrests & only read the Miranda rights maybe 5 times. None of my cases have ever been dismissed.
No matter what anybody says, you MUST be read your miranda rights. Ironically, the Miranda case originated in Arizona. In Miranda v Arizona. I listed the link in my sources. It sends you to the case file.
You don't need to be read your Miranda rights. Real life isn't television – we don't read Miranda's every time we arrest someone. Only if you're being interrogated, and since you were drunk, you probably weren't.
this site has a ton of links with dui related information. plus there's a list of lawyers for your state. just call one of them and ask what your options are.
http://alcotesters.com/arizona.htm
Miranda only applies to statements you made while:
In custody, and
being interrogated about a criminal act.
If the Officer questioned you while he had you in custody, those statements cannot be used as evidence against you, nor can any evidence that came from your statements. Example: You admitted you had an illegal weapon in the car while he questioned you. They could not use the weapon as evidence, since it would have come from self-incriminating statements made without Miranda.
However, any evidence that was not from your statements is still admissible. So the sobriety test he did before he arrested you is admissible, as are the Officer's observations of your behavior and the Breathalyzer test.
If the ONLY evidence that you were DUI was statements you made after being in custody and questioned about a criminal act without Miranda, the case would be dismissed for lack of evidence.
Since that is most likely not the case, you're probably going to Court. If the Officer has the results of a Field Sobriety Test and a Breathalyzer Test that indicate you were over the legal limit, you're probably going to be convicted.