Man Says He Was Detained For 6 Hours Because Police Wouldn’t Watch The Video Proving Him Innocent

[Sabine Grant]

As for the OP, very unlucky to fit the broader parameters of the description but not to be read your rights and denied a phone call?

Maybe I just picked up those novel ideas watching television...

Yes most people do pick up that idea from TV.

Generally apprehended or taken into custody suspects are bound to be interrogated by investigators/detectives. Therefor, the importance of them being made aware of their right to remain silent or/and contact a lawyer to be present during said interrogation. Unless there is an assumption that such contact with a lawyer is to be made via telepathic skills of some sort, there should never be any obstruction for a taken into custody suspect to make a phone call for the purpose of contacting a lawyer.

They only have to read your rights if they are going to question you.

And the ratio of taken into police custody suspects who somehow would not be asked any questions is?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights-and-the-fifth-amendment.html

The above link content tells us indeed that once taken into custody and prior to being questioned, the suspect must be read his rights. In this specific case, Belk claims that he was detained for 6 hours while he had asked to contact his lawyer, his request having been declined several times. Up to his lat attempt when he finally was able to contact his lawyer. The fact they did not read him his rights and the reason for it would have been that they had no intention or made no attempt to interrogate him is still highly questionable.Considering that it would reflect a trend for the same PD to arrest an individual, detain them without giving them any opportunity to present their own narrative(with or without a lawyer present ) while being under the protection of the Miranda.

You should never talk to police anyway so whether they mirandize you or not should be moot for everyone regardless.

It is certainly not "moot" when it comes to the Judiciary system. I will safely assume that Prosecutors are fully aware that any statement from the suspect obtained without a prior reading of his/her Rights is cause to be rejected by a Judge. Declared to having been obtained unlawfully.

 

[Nexus]

It is certainly not "moot" when it comes to the Judiciary system. I will safely assume that Prosecutors are fully aware that any statement from the suspect obtained without a prior reading of his/her Rights is cause to be rejected by a Judge. Declared to having been obtained unlawfully.

I mean moot for suspects. I would be happy if police didn't marandize me because if I did forget not to say a word that would be an additional layer of protection from the prosecution. I've seen fools on police videos complaining about not being read their rights when they should be silently enjoying the mistake if police decide to question them later.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Shouldn't he have been informed as to why he was apprehended? A couple calls on the sidewalk to confirm an alibi could have made the entire station part unnecessary.

Just glad the Celtics weren't in town.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Shouldn't he have been informed as to why he was apprehended? A couple calls on the sidewalk to confirm an alibi could have made the entire station part unnecessary.

Just glad the Celtics weren't in town.

I think he was told, just not allowed to do anything like contact a lawyer.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I've seen fools on police videos complaining about not being read their rights when they should be silently enjoying the mistake if police decide to question them later.

Shouldn't the opposite be true? If you haven't been read your rights, you should start blabbing, knowing that anything you say can't be used.

 

[Nexus]

Shouldn't the opposite be true? If you haven't been read your rights, you should start blabbing, knowing that anything you say can't be used.

If you knew for certain the police would admit they didn't read your rights then yes. All the evidence they collected based off your admissions wouldn't be allowed. It would be like getting them to destroy incriminating evidence against you.

 

[Metaphor]

I've seen fools on police videos complaining about not being read their rights when they should be silently enjoying the mistake if police decide to question them later.

Shouldn't the opposite be true? If you haven't been read your rights, you should start blabbing, knowing that anything you say can't be used.

No, I would say not. I used to think that if you were innocent, it could only help you to waive your right to stay silent. But, I've been disabused of that notion.

Anything you say can't be used, but you're just giving the police extra ammunition if you say something that they can use to their advantage.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Shouldn't the opposite be true? If you haven't been read your rights, you should start blabbing, knowing that anything you say can't be used.

No, I would say not. I used to think that if you were innocent, it could only help you to waive your right to stay silent. But, I've been disabused of that notion.

Anything you say can't be used, but you're just giving the police extra ammunition if you say something that they can use to their advantage.

Note my smiley...

 

[Togo]

Shouldn't he have been informed as to why he was apprehended? A couple calls on the sidewalk to confirm an alibi could have made the entire station part unnecessary.

More to the point, all the time they were holding him, they weren't looking for the actual criminal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Shouldn't the opposite be true? If you haven't been read your rights, you should start blabbing, knowing that anything you say can't be used.

If you knew for certain the police would admit they didn't read your rights then yes. All the evidence they collected based off your admissions wouldn't be allowed. It would be like getting them to destroy incriminating evidence against you.

If you just start blabbing without them questioning you it won't help.

 

[Metaphor]

Shouldn't he have been informed as to why he was apprehended? A couple calls on the sidewalk to confirm an alibi could have made the entire station part unnecessary.

More to the point, all the time they were holding him, they weren't looking for the actual criminal.

Wouldn't that only be true if they were certain that they had their man?

Can police not arrest or look for more than one suspect (or rather, person who matches the description of a suspect) at a time? I'm not being snarky; it never occurred to me that they couldn't continue to look for other (possibly better) matches, even if they already had a suspect in custody.