Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
The basic position is adverse inference may not be drawn about the defendant's culpability, where he/she does not answer police questions. While this is the common law position, it is buttressed by various legislative provisions. Some investigations can strip the right, such as those undertaken by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Passengers can also ask if they are free to leave. “If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave,” the ACLU says. “Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.”
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.
The person approached is not required to identify themselves or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. [10] Police are not required to tell a person that he or she is free to decline to answer questions and go about his or her business; [11] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking ...
(The Center Square) – New Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes is making it clear to city residents who are immigrants that police officers will not be asking about immigration status. Barnes said ...
Personnel with the San Angelo Police Department have resigned or been placed on leave pending an investigation connected to a gun found in a foiled smuggling attempt at the border, according to ...
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.