The police never read me my Miranda rights. Can my case be dismissed?

The honest answer: Probably not. Due to popular television shows, most people think that the failure of the police officer to read you your Miranda rights results in the dismissal of your case. Nope. You are only entitled to Miranda if you are in custody and are about to be interrogated (questioned). The term “in custody” has various meanings, however. You are certainly in custody when you are in jail. However, I once convinced a judge to suppress statements and field sobriety tests because my client was not read his Miranda rights prior to being questioned outside on his front lawn by an officer with his gun drawn. Case over.

I’ve heard of Miranda, but what exactly is it?

“Miranda” has become part of our everyday vocabulary, mainly from police or courtroom television shows and movies. The Miranda warning is what you probably already know or have heard: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t afford one, one will be provided to you.” Miranda comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1966. Miranda protects you from being a witness against yourself (self-incrimination). If you confess to a crime or answer questions that the government can use to prove you committed a crime, these statements are likely admissible into evidence at trial. Miranda tells you that you have a right to not answer questions. Miranda also tells you that you have the right to have an attorney with you if you choose to answer questions. This way, you are protected from making a statement that might harm you in court. Miranda, however, need not always be read to you. In order for Miranda to kick in, you must be in a certain situation. First, the person questioning you must (usually) be law enforcement: a police officer, FBI agent, etc. A friend cooperating with the government, wearing a wire, asking you questions probably does not need to read you Miranda before you start a conversation. Second, you must be in an interrogation. If you walk up to an officer and confess to a crime without him asking you a question, you probably cannot challenge your confession on Miranda grounds. Third, you must be in custody. This means that standing on the street corner, unhandcuffed and free to leave at any time, with an officer is probably not custody. Minnesota courts have spent a lot of time figuring out what constitutes law enforcement, interrogation, and custody. Each situation is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Your case may be different than Joe Smith’s and so what the court decided for Joe Smith may not apply to your case. Oftentimes, these decisions turn on tiny details that may seem insignificant to most people, but could help win you the case—what was said, when, where, how, etc.

When can the police search my car?

Police can search your car whenever they make up a reason to believe you are committing a crime. To be honest, this depends on what kind of car you drive, your race, and what neighborhood you live in. Unfortunately, some police officers engage in racial profiling, and will manufacture reasons to search a car when no valid reason exists. Much like lawyers, one bad apple can ruin the entire lot. Whether the search is legal, however, is another question. The general rule is that police may only search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and believe that there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle. Because this is a highly litigated area of criminal law (https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clss4th.htm), it is best to consult a criminal defense attorney when your vehicle has been subject to police search. Never give police permission to search your car. The whole, “well if you don’t have anything to hide, why don’t you let me search it” comment is a trick of the trade. Don’t fall for it.

What is the Fourth Amendment and how does it help me?

The Fourth Amendment has graced more dismissal orders than any other Amendment. We as Americans are very lucky to have its protection, for we are the only country in the world where if evidence is seized in violation of its beautiful prose, the evidence is dismissed, suppressed, and done away with. Gone. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Article I, section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution is nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment, but the Minnesota Supreme Court has, at times, afforded individuals greater protection against unlawful searches and seizures under the Minnesota Constitution than that available under the Federal Constitution. Protection of the home is at the core of the Fourth Amendment, but protection also applies to persons, papers, and effects.

First Amendment win - Ryan Garry LLC

WCCO (Minneapolis) – 2010-08-27

Charges dismissed against [Client] who posted alleged offensive cartoons regarding the Muslim religion.

St. Cloud City Attorney Matt Staehling expressed disappointment but says there will be no appeals. Prosecutors declined earlier to press criminal charges.

[Client]’s lawyer, Ryan Garry, is championing the decision as a win for the First Amendment.

First Amendment win

Related posts

Marquis Who’s Who Recognizes Ryan Garry for Expertise in Criminal Defense Law

Chauvin trial begins this Week with jury selection — or, ‘jury rejection’ – Twin Cities

Colin Kaepernick helping to cover legal costs for Minnesota Protesters