Police Interrogations and Arrests: Frequently Asked Questions
Do the cops have to “read me my rights” if I’m arrested?
Will a court dismiss my case if I was interrogated without being given a Miranda warning?
Is it legal for a police detective to interrogate someone without a warrant?
How should I use my right to keep quiet if I am being questioned by the police?
How forceful can the cops be while asking questions?
Can a person accused with a crime be compelled to provide body samples?
I was pulled over at a roadblock and ordered to wait and answer questions from a police officer. Is this permissible?
When do the cops need a warrant to arrest someone?
Should an arrested person ever submit a police statement?
Why it’s advisable to consult with a lawyer before speaking with police.
Table of Contents
Do the cops have to “read me my rights” if I’m arrested?
No. If they begin interrogating you without first reading you your rights, they cannot use whatever you say as direct evidence against you at trial. What exactly are these rights? The Miranda warning (mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona) consists of the typical litany uttered by TV cops immediately upon detaining a suspect:
You are free to keep quiet.
If you say anything, what you say may be used against you in court.
You have the right to speak with an attorney and have that attorney present throughout any interrogation.
If you are unable to afford a lawyer, one will be assigned for you.
If you choose to speak with the officer, you have the right to terminate the interview at any moment. (This section of the warning is frequently left out of the script.)
It makes little difference whether an interrogation takes place in a prison, at the site of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of a field: If you are detained (have your freedom of action significantly restricted), the police must provide a Miranda warning if they plan to interrogate you and use your replies as direct evidence at trial.
There is no need for a Miranda warning if you are not in police custody. This exception usually occurs when the police stop someone on the street for interrogation about a recent crime and the individual blurts out a confession before the police have a chance to issue the warning. (For additional information on Miranda rights, see When Cops Break the Miranda Rule and Exceptions to the Miranda Rule.)
Will a court dismiss my case if I was interrogated without being given a Miranda warning?
No, not always. Many individuals wrongly assume that if the police fail to provide Miranda warnings to the detained person, the case would be dismissed. Miranda really specifies that a warning is required if authorities question an in-custody suspect and intend to use any comments as evidence. Nothing you say in response to police interrogation may be used to prosecute you if you are not given a Miranda warning. (There are several exceptions.)
According to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule, courts must suppress (exclude) evidence derived from other, unlawfully acquired evidence. It does not, however, apply to Miranda in the same manner as it does to the Fourth Amendment. Physical evidence (drugs, for example) discovered by police as a result of a statement made after a missed Miranda warning is often admissible in court. (See Is Evidence Inadmissible If Police Discover It Due to a Miranda Violation?)
Is it legal for a police detective to interrogate someone without a warrant?
Yes, police investigators may summon anyone to the station (or elsewhere) for interrogation. A detective does not need to arrest or charge you in order to question you. If you willingly agree to questioning, your answers may be used against you, yet the officer was not required to give you a Miranda warning since you were not in jail (you were technically free to leave and stop the interrogation at any time).
People who are unsure whether to speak with a police officer do not have to provide a quick “yes” or “no.” Many individuals get apprehensive and agitated when challenged by a police officer, reducing their capacity to deliver correct information. A decent approach is to postpone the interview by stating something like, “This was unexpected. I’d want to keep mute for the time being; maybe I’ll speak to you later.” Among other reasons, the delay allows a person to speak with a lawyer and maybe have the lawyer present during the interview if the individual wishes to speak.
How should I use my right to keep quiet if I am being questioned by the police?
If you’ve been arrested and have prudently chosen to keep quiet (at least until you can speak with a lawyer), advise the interrogator of your choice. If you just keep your mouth shut and say nothing, the police have the legal right to continue questioning you, and if they do, you may say something you later regret. (Ironically, the common norm is that you must speak out to assert your right to silence.)
To invoke your Miranda rights, you do not need to employ a specific set of words. If an officer issues you a Miranda warning, you may end the interrogation by stating something like:
“I don’t want to speak with you; I want to speak with an attorney.”
“I will not communicate with you.”
“I assert my right against self-incrimination.”
“I assert my Miranda rights.”
In general, the police have violated Miranda if they continue to interrogate you after you have stated your right to stay quiet. As a consequence, whatever you say after that time will not be admissible at your trial as proof of guilt.
How forceful can the cops be while asking questions?
Police officers are not permitted to employ physical or psychological pressure to compel you to speak with them. The days of the rubber hose, long grilling sessions under intense lights, and extreme sleep deprivation are mostly behind. If police officers get information via any of these illicit ways, the prosecutor cannot utilize the material in court. Furthermore, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” concept, any evidence obtained by the police as a consequence of a pressured statement is similarly inadmissible.
Defendants often allege that police officers forced them to speak. It’s also usual for police personnel to claim that the defendants talked freely. If the police physically pressure a defendant into speaking, the defendant may back up his statements with images of bruises and markings. However, proving police brutality with charges of psychological pressure is significantly more difficult. Judges often agree with the police and determine that no compulsion occurred, feeling that defendants have a stronger reason to lie than police personnel.
Can a person accused with a crime be compelled to provide body samples?
Yes. You could believe that being compelled to provide physical samples—such as blood, hair, or fingernail clippings—violates the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. However, the United States Supreme Court believes differently. It has decided that the Fifth Amendment exclusively protects communications, and that body samples constitute physical evidence and hence not protected by the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination.
I was pulled over at a roadblock and ordered to wait and answer questions from a police officer. Is this permissible?
Yes, as long as the police apply a neutral approach when stopping automobiles (for example, halting every third car) and limit any disruption to you and other drivers. The police cannot pick out your vehicle at a roadblock unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect you have breached the law.
When do the cops need a warrant to arrest someone?
Normally, police may make an arrest without requesting a warrant if they have solid grounds (called “probable cause”) to think that a crime has been committed and that the person they want to arrest committed the crime.
However, there is a significant exception to this rule. When it comes to arrests, the phrase “a man’s house is his castle” holds true: police must usually obtain a warrant to arrest someone at home.
Should an arrested person ever submit a police statement?
You’ve never committed a crime in your life, but the police stop you on your way home from a bar late one night while investigating several burglaries in your area. You want to explain what you were doing to the cops and clear things up. They also claim to want to speak with you. What are the disadvantages of speaking with the cops? In general, the negative is potentially enormous, and you have no upside.
Anything you say has the potential to be used against you.
Every statement you give to the police may be used against you as evidence. You are effectively assisting the police and prosecution in convicting you. To level the “playing field,” every detained individual has the right to stay quiet and to have a counsel present during interrogation. A person who does not utilize these rights is hopelessly outgunned in the face of a prosecutor with vast resources.
People who have been arrested often believe that simply denying everything would improve their case. In fact, if the prosecution proves that even one aspect of what was denied was true, the defendant’s credibility suffers and his counsel has a considerably more difficult time defending him.
assisting police in building a case against you
Sometimes police may want to interrogate someone because they don’t feel they have enough evidence to arrest him and are hoping he will unwittingly provide them with enough information to warrant a charge.
A suspect may unwittingly offer police grounds to file fresh charges against him by conversing with them. A suspect who lies during an interview, for example, may face a charge of obstructing justice. Alternatively, a suspect who says the identities of other persons engaged in a crime may be prosecuted with conspiracy. In certain situations, a person’s testimony to police may lead to charges that the officers had not previously considered pursuing, even if the charges that led to the arrest are dismissed.
Why it’s advisable to consult with a lawyer before speaking with police.
Even an innocent person’s honest statement to the authorities might be problematic. For example, the statement might include accidental mistakes or contradictions on which the prosecution would later seize.
A person under arrest nearly never gains anything by speaking with the police. Instead, a person in such position should claim his right to counsel, inform the police that he wishes to meet with an attorney, and then seek legal representation. An expert criminal defense lawyer will assist the individual in dealing with the police, the charges, and any trial.