What Happens If the Police Don’t Read You Your Miranda Rights?

If the police don’t read you your Miranda rights, what usually happens is that any statements or confessions made during custodial interrogation may be found inadmissible in court and cannot be used as evidence against you at trial. Because Miranda rights violations can jeopardize legal proceedings or evidence obtained during the questioning, the prosecution is not allowed to use information improperly obtained by them against you, and this can significantly improve the outcome of your case.

The Miranda rights warning originates from the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The United States Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogations to ensure they are aware of their constitutional protections. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the understanding that anything they say can be used against them in court.

Most people are familiar with these rights from hearing them being read on police shows, but they still may be confused as to how a person’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is protected in a real situation. Recognizing the importance of these rights is crucial if you are arrested and charged with a crime. Being aware of your Miiranda rights allows you to make informed decisions about when and how to exercise those rights and to understand that you have a choice of whether or not to answer questions posed by law enforcement officers.

What Happens If the Police Don’t Read You Your Miranda Rights?

In Florida, law enforcement officers are required to read Miranda warnings to individuals who are in custody and subjected to interrogation. If they fail to do so, any statements or confessions you may have made can be excluded, which can negatively impact the prosecution’s case against you. In addition, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, any evidence derived from an improperly obtained statement may also be inadmissible in court. If the excluded evidence is significant, it can potentially lead to acquittal or dismissal of the case.

However, there are some limitations and exceptions to Miranda violations that you should be aware of:

Custody:

Miranda warnings are required only for custodial interrogations – those made where you are taken into custody by law enforcement. Statements made before you were arrested or when you were not in custody may still be admissible. This is because Miranda rights are protected by the “Exclusionary Rule” — if the authorities gather evidence or statements in violation of a recognized constitutional right, then the government is not allowed to use that evidence or any evidence that stems from the initial tainted evidence.  Therefore, if you are not charged or arrested, even if the officer should have advised you of your Miranda rights, there is no remedy for the police officer’s conduct because there is no case from which to exclude those statements.

Custodial interrogation includes the combination of the following:

1. Custody – Custody occurs when you are in contact with an officer and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. This covers not only situations where you are told that you are under arrest, but also situations where you are handcuffed in the back of a cruiser, taken back to the police department for a long interview, and other situations where your freedom to break contact with the police no longer exists. The fact that you were not told you were under arrest at the time you made the statements doesn’t automatically make those statements admissible.
2. Interrogation – When an officer’s words or actions are likely to illicit an incriminating response, that is legally considered an interrogation.  This includes formal questions after you are told you are under arrest but also includes officers’ behavior or statements in your presence that are likely to have you make incriminating statements.

If you are in a situation that is considered custodial interrogation, then the authorities must read you your Miranda rights. Spontaneous statements, as well as statements in which you have no expectation of privacy (such as when a police officer hears a discussion between two arrestees in the back of a police car), are not protected by Miranda, and prosecutors can use any incriminating statement that was overheard.

Limited scope:

While evidence derived from inadmissible statements may be excluded under Miranda, this is not full protection as the courts have recognized significant exceptions to the general “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine for Miranda violations. As a result of these exceptions, physical evidence discovered as a result of Miranda violations may still be admissible in court, and witnesses identified through Miranda violations may still be allowed to testify against you. Also, even if an earlier unwarned confession was excluded, a subsequent confession obtained after proper Miranda warnings were read could be admissible. There is ongoing debate about the constitutionality of these limitations.

Other exceptions to the exclusionary rule for Miranda violations include:

• Public safety exception: Statements obtained without Miranda warnings may be admissible if there was an immediate threat to public safety.
• Impeachment use: Inadmissible statements can still be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility as a witness if the defendant makes contradictory statements at a trial.
• Tangible evidence: Physical evidence discovered as a result of Miranda violations is often still admissible in some situations, such as if the prosecution can show that the police would have found the tangible evidence (such as drugs, guns, or stolen goods) anyway.
• Witnesses: A witness uncovered by a statement obtained in violation of Miranda rights may be used to testify against the defendant at trial.

Be aware that failure to read Miranda rights does not invalidate the arrest itself or prevent the case from proceeding. Whether or not the arresting officer proceeded properly, anyone arrested should remain silent and get legal assistance before answering any questions.

Get Help if You Have Been Arrested

Both the United States and the state of Florida provide constitutional protections to individuals who have been arrested and taken into custody for questioning for being suspected of having committed a crime or offense. Your Miranda rights are important, and you should protect yourself by immediately asking for an attorney who can make sure you are treated properly, make sure all your rights are protected, and keep you from making mistakes or saying anything that can give prosecutors a better case.

Just because a statement may be thrown out due to violations of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment, that doesn’t mean your entire case is automatically won.  A prosecutor can still use the remaining evidence to try to prove the case against you; it just becomes more difficult. However, when incriminating statements become an issue in a case, a skilled attorney can use violations for a significantly beneficial plea negotiation.

At Taracks & Associates, founding attorney Barry Taracks is a former state prosecutor with over 30 years of professional experience, and he understands your Miranda and other constitutional rights. He is familiar with both sides of the courtroom and knows the courts, the judges, and prosecutors, and the intricacies of the criminal justice system. He understands the tactics prosecutors use to get a conviction and how to combat them by making sure all your rights are protected, challenging the credibility and reliability of the evidence against you, and aggressively building a defense tailored to your individual situation.