Is this a valid waiver of Miranda?

One night Officer Tackleberry arrests Joe Blow for DWI and Resisting a Police Officer. During the booking process the Officer Mirandizes Joe and tries to ask him questions about his drinking that night. Joe tells the Officer to get lost and invokes his right to a lawyer. Tackleberry stops questioning Joe at that time. Joe is placed in jail that night. The next morning Detective Callahan learns that Joe is in jail. Joe is a suspect in a robbery Callahan is working. Joe has not seen a lawyer yet and has not been to court. Detective Callahan does not know that Joe has already been read Miranda. Callahan goes to the jail and Mirandizes Joe again. Joe waives his Miranda rights and talks to Callahan. Joe is alone during the interview and eventually confesses to the robbery. Was Miranda applied properly in this scenario? Why?
Additional Details
Here's a copy of Miranda for those not familiar with it:
1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

David

Yes. always a good idea to mir. the perp twice. once he invokes his right to a lawyer questions concerning the crime must stop.(ex biographical questions) but he can waive them anytime. the only issue documentation of this waiver it would help in court if he contests it. yes Mirranda was applied properly. sounds like a border patrol test question

and to the previous answer mirranda does not have to be read when someone is arrested only when questioned.

lee f

YES! The suspect must be read miranda after being arrested before he can be asked questions. Prior to being arrested he can be asked questions because it is the officer performing a investigation. (DWI). Now, the detective, is onto a whole other investigation. Mr. suspect is in jail and obviously can leave on his own when he wants to do so. That invokes the Miranda warning. He was read his rights and waived to talk to police. The confession on that point will stand. Mr. suspect could have stopped talking at any point and asked for legal council.
Hope that answers you question

Ã Â®?Lil BitchÃ Â®? (a.k.a. Ã¡?Â¦SnazzlefrazzÃ¡?Â¦)

Excellent question and will give me some practice for law school.

I would say that he was properly Mirandized because Detective Callahan was investigating and ended up questioning him on an unrelated charge. The detective followed the proper procedure by reading him his rights before questioning him. Therefore, since they are two separate and unrelated charges and he was properly read his rights for both charges, it should hold up in court. It just happened that the suspect happened to be in jail at the time, however, the two were completely unrelated offenses.

I can see how a defense attorney would argue against this, however, I would maintain that the person was properly read his rights and still sought to make a confession to the robbery. His right to counsel remains invoked on the initial charge and the suspect (as far as I can tell from the information provided) was not questioned on the DWI or Resisting an Officer).

I would also add that this guy is a complete idiot, for being read his rights on two separate occasions and still making a confession.

Baby Girl Due in August

Yes he was mirandized properly. Because it is two separate incidents, Miranda does have to be read twice (once last night and once today) to the suspect. As long as Joe Blow was marandized, any admission he made from jail, would be admissible in the Courts. However, if Callahan wanted to talk to the suspect about the OWI again, he couldn't due to the fact that Joe Blow didn't want to talk to the police about it the first time.

GIOSTORMUSN

Yes, it is a legal questioning. He was read his rights by the investigating officer and waived them. He asked for a lawyer on the initial charge of resisting and dui, but when he was read his rights by a different investigator, he had no knowledge of the request for a lawyer. The confession would be legal for admission as evidence.

wuxxler

Yes. The suspect waived his rights and voluntarily chose to speak with the officer.

.. .this can't be good

Yes, Joe is sunk. The best argument would be that he didn't understand the Rights while drunk - but he was read them again while sober and then confessed. Bad idea. Some confessions get tossed when you get a really good attorney to say the police were applying undo pressure, but, really, this doesn't sound like that is what happened.

Brian C

I would think the confession would be inadmissable because Miranda had already been invoked and Callahan made no effort to determine whether it had or not.

knoodelhed

A better way: Assuming Det Callahan didn't yet file a wanted on Joe or for some reason it didn't come up when Ofc Tackleberry ran the customary ID check, Callahan could wait until just after Joe is arraigned or just before he is out-processed or properly bailed on the DUI before questioning him. Alternately, when Joe's DUI counsel materializes, Callahan could arrange to be present, perhaps even "cautioning" him on the way into the cells that Joe is a person of interest in a robbery investigation.

stephen p

Not everything to answer the question is there. If Officer Tackleberry advised Joe Blow of his Miranda rights, then a copy of the Rights, along with the notation of refusal to talk without an attiorney, would have been attached to both the arrest report and the booking paperwork in the jail. Detective Callahan would have seen this upon checking the jail paperwork, and therefore would not have given Miranda again without attorney presence.

Master Yoda

Yes it is a valid waiver of miranda. The reason is because they are for separate incidents. Moreover, even though Joe Blow has vlounteered to speak to the detective, he can invoke his miranda rights at any time during the questioning phase.

Goldilocks

Yes, because he was read his rights....twice.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: