Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
Absolutely nothing --- as I made clear in my disclaimer, which you omitted.
I would be happy to be corrected, of course, if you're better qualified than I to comment on this topic.
I am so glad to hear you say that. If you were a LEO, lawyer or judge I would have been very concerned.
Regarding your "disclaimer", I didn't see it so my appologies. However, the way you wrote your comments as what appeared to be a statement of fact, rather than opinion, led me to believe that you were insinuating that you had a degree of expertise in the subject. My interpertation, I guess.
What you wrote is a common misconception among lay people but has several errors in it.
A LEO does not have to inform you that you are a suspect in a criminal proceeding. If this were the case then undercover work would not happen. Can you imagine a UC cop saying "I suspect you of being a drug dealer"?
A LEO also does not have to advise you of your rights automatically. The rights you speak of were granted under a Supreme Court decision (Miranda vs Arizona, 1966) and generally only have to be delivered to a person when there is a custodial interrogation that is about to occur. For example, if the person is not in custody (IE not under arrest or detention or being interviewed over the phone, etc) the person does not need to be "Mirandized".
As far as I can recall (and I may be a bit off on this one, it's been a long time since I studied this stuff) there is also no requirement to say how the information gained is to be used. The court ruling did not specify the exact wording to be used and it varies from place to place, but they did provide a recommendation and I believe that it said "anything the person says WILL be used against that person in court" but some jurisdictions say "can and will" while others say "may be", etc.
It's also important to note that, although rarely done, a LEO does NOT have to Mirandize you prior to questioning, even when in custody but if they chose not to the information gained can't be used against YOU.
Should a person opt to envoke their Miranda rights, the interaction does not have to stop but questioning usually does due to the inadmissibility of their statements.
Regardless of whether a person has been Mirandized or not and regardless of whether they have envoked these rights any spontaneous statement made by the person can still be used against them.
I hope this clears things up. If not you may want to Google "Miranda vs Arizona (1966)"