[addy85]

It did look a little excessive but its the higher personnals fault for approving the raid

[sb335is]

Originally Posted by Kroy

To us Cali folk, this must seem ludicrous.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by Peanuto

Yes, when you are taken into police custody, you do. I was in police custody, thus, should have been Mirandized.

Were you thrown into jail? If not then no you didn't have to be mirandized

[addy85]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/c...a/miranda.html

Did you bother reading the link

[Peanuto]

Originally Posted by addy85

Were you thrown into jail? If not then no you didn't have to be mirandized

I was questioned, and in police custody in a cell.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by addy85

Were you thrown into jail? If not then no you didn't have to be mirandized

if you are not mirandized anything you say is not admissable in court

[Feyd]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

if you are not mirandized anything you say is not admissable in court

Clearly neither was the truth in his case...

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by Feyd

Clearly neither was the truth in his case...

yea, it would of took everything possible for me not to jump up and tackle the officer lying on the stand, its a tough thing bc its hard to prove the officer DIDNT read them

[xbook]

These people were breaking the law, they got what they deserved.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

if you are not mirandized anything you say is not admissable in court

Okay time for a quick criminology lesson. If you're arrested and put in a squad car then you don't have to be read your Miranda rights. The reason being is that you have only been detained and are not in formal custody. Before you're thrown in jail you will have to sign your Miranda papers and you'll be finger printed etc.

Oh BTW there is something called the moving vehicle exception were what you say/have in your car is admissible in court. Hint the reason for the dash cam and microphones on police officer's vest.

[deanmc]

You don't have to be thrown in jail for your "Miranda rights" to apply. You only need to be in police "custody." Being in custody means that a reasonable person would not believe that he is free to leave. You can be in police custody even if you are not yet arrested, e.g. during police questioning.

In Peanuto's situation, he was handcuffed at the station, and was thus in police custody.

And yes, I am a lawyer, albeit an unlicensed one...but that's another story for another time...

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by xbook

These people were breaking the law, they got what they deserved.

wow, you dont think tazer boy deserved what he got, but these people did

[addy85]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

if you are not mirandized anything you say is not admissable in court

Fyi police can read your rights at any time while you're in custody so whatever you say will be admissable

[E90 87ss]

Originally Posted by Peanuto

Yes, when you are taken into police custody, you do. I was in police custody, thus, should have been Mirandized.

They don't have to, they are suppose to. Is it in your favor if they don't, yes, but only if you were admitting to a crime without any proof. It's mainly for court statements/interrogations... If they catch you shooting someone followed by arresting you, it's not necessary unless you are talking your mouth off about other crimes, but is when they start talking to you. They can ask your name and what not without reading your rights. Besides you sign stuff when you get finger printed...

They shouldn't have shot the dogs with the kid there. They should sue for damages, the kid is definitely traumatized. They should also sue for a number of other things. I don't hate cops for this reason, but this was just incompetent. I hate them for lying, breaking the law, and harming society. The law was built to protect the weakest members of society not harm them.

[deanmc]

Originally Posted by deanmc

You don't have to be thrown in jail for your "Miranda rights" to apply. You only need to be in police "custody." Being in custody means that a reasonable person would not believe that he is free to leave. You can be in police custody even if you are not yet arrested, e.g. during police questioning.

In Peanuto's situation, he was handcuffed at the station, and was thus in police custody.

And yes, I am a lawyer, albeit an unlicensed one...but that's another story for another time...

That being said however, a judge will most likely not dismiss his case, unless he made a statement in custody incrminating himself, e.g. "Yeah, I was drinking and driving and really should not have done that," and that statement was used as evidence to convict him.

[ktdw]

Originally Posted by addy85

If you're arrested and put in a squad car then you don't have to be read your Miranda rights. The reason being is that you have only been detained and are not in formal custody.

If you are arrested, you are in formal custody. Just saying...

[DougLikesBMW]

Stupid cops. What do you expect is gunna happen when you blow up a dude's door and then bust in there in the middle of the night.

Wait until he comes out in the middle of the day and tackle him or something. No dogs getting shot, no humans getting shot, no need for expensive equipment and police teams.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by deanmc

You don't have to be thrown in jail for your "Miranda rights" to apply. You only need to be in police "custody." Being in custody means that a reasonable person would not believe that he is free to leave. You can be in police custody even if you are not yet arrested, e.g. during police questioning.

In Peanuto's situation, he was handcuffed at the station, and was thus in police custody.

And yes, I am a lawyer, albeit an unlicensed one...but that's another story for another time...

Being questioned on the side of the road is not considered "custody" its considered being detained so again miranda rights don't apply.

Again police have the right to read your miranda rights at any time while your in custody.

As far has peanuts case goes he probably signed off on his miranda rights without knowing it.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

wow, you dont think tazer boy deserved what he got, but these people did

Just tryin' to troll with the same thoughts that were expressed by the majority in the taser thread.

So cops are ok to use force against a drunk 17 year old, but not a dog that is attacking them.

Yeah, I can understand that line of thinking.

[deanmc]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

if you are not mirandized anything you say is not admissable in court

Exactly. Well, anything you say AFTER you are placed "in custody."

Sorry for the threadjack, OP. What the cops did in this situation was a little overboard to me. I'd like to know how the search warrant was signed if it was based solely on an anonymous tip. There usually needs to be some sort of corroborating evidence to go along with the tip.

But yeah, there was no need to slaughter a family pet if, according to the wife, the dog was behind a caged enclosure in the kitchen. Very sad.

[DougLikesBMW]

Originally Posted by xbook

Just tryin' to troll with the same thoughts that were expressed by the majority in the taser thread.

So cops are ok to use force against a drunk 17 year old, but not a dog that is attacking them.

Yeah, I can understand that line of thinking.

If a cop can't take care of a dog that's 10 inches tall and nipping at it's ankles with a swift non lethal blow then maybe he shouldn't be on the SWAT team.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by xbook

Just tryin' to troll with the same thoughts that were expressed by the majority in the taser thread.

So cops are ok to use force against a drunk 17 year old, but not a dog that is attacking them.

Yeah, I can understand that line of thinking.

they should have been prepared for animals, and the dog was behind a cage in the kitchen, and ANY dog will go crazy with 5 men running in the house screaming, they SHOULD know that and be prepared with some type of non lethal weapon for them