Articles Posted in St. Louis Criminal Defense

Yes, unfortunately that is the case. This is described as the “booking question exception” to the Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are a list of rights that you have by way of the US Constitution. The most prominent of these rights are the right to remain silent, and the right to consult an attorney (or have one present while you are being questioned).

When you are arrested, but before you are placed in a jail cell, a booking officer will typically ask you several questions (ranging from whether you have any diseases, to whether you are in a gang). But these booking questions do not have to be preceded by a reading of your Miranda warnings. This is because it is not considered to be the same thing as a typical police interrogation. As a result, any statements you make to the booking officer can and will be used against you in a court of law. (Pennsylvania v. Muniz, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1990).

So if you are being booked at the jailhouse, and the booking officer asks you a routine question about any gang affiliation, your response can be used as evidence. If for instance you say that you are in fact associated with a certain gang that is suspected of criminal activity in a separate matter, the booking officer could be called as a witness to testify as to your affirmative response at a trial. This can happen even though you were not read any Miranda warnings before the question was asked by the booking officer.

In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and questioned for two hours until he finally confessed to the crime for which he had been taken into custody. The Court overturned his conviction because it believed that the confession he made should not have been admitted into evidence at his trial. Instead, the Court believed that the police officers questioning Miranda should have first made him aware of his right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. Because neither of these things were done during his initial interrogation, the Court felt that the subsequent confession Miranda gave was inadmissible as evidence of his guilt.

This case has become one the most famous decisions ever handed down by the Court. Most people recognize the phrases that have sprang out of this case, such as, “Miranda warnings,” and “read him his rights.” The idea is simply this: once you are taken into police custody, it is necessary at that point for law enforcement to make you aware of a certain set of constitutional rights that you have.

These rights include: 1) the right to remain silent; 2) if you say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law; 3) you have the right to consult with an attorney and have that attorney present during any questioning; 4) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you; 5) if you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. These basic rights are articulated a bit differently depending upon the jurisdiction in which you live. But the fundamental idea remains the same.

Generally speaking, if the statement was made voluntarily, then it can be used against you in a court of law (even if the police have not yet read you the Miranda warnings). Miranda warnings are a short list of rights that a police officer must make you aware of (usually be reading them to you) once you are taken into custody. The two main rights that Miranda evokes is the right to remain silent (in the face of police questioning), and the right to have an attorney present when questioning occurs.

But again, making you aware of your Miranda rights need only be done after you have been taken into custody. This means that if you are on the street corner, and a police officer starts asking you questions about something, the officer has not taken you into custody (in other words, you are free to walk away at any time). So any statements you make in this kind of scenario can still be used against you in a court of law. But once you are in fact taken into custody, the Miranda warnings have to be issued.

As you can probably see, a great deal of courtroom time is subsequently spent on determining whether or not the statements were made while the person was (or was not) in police custody. If it can be argued that the individual was in fact in police custody, but was not read his Miranda warnings, then any statement the individual made thereafter cannot be used as evidence against him. But if the prosecutor can successfully argue that the person was not in police custody (and was free to leave the scene at any point that he wanted), then all statements will be regarded as having been made voluntarily, and therefore admissible in a court of law.

This is a terribly important question, if for no other reason than because once an individual is taken into custody by a police officer, he or she is supposed to make you aware of your Miranda rights. Miranda rights are a short list of constitutional rights that each citizen has.

The two most important tenets of Miranda is: 1) the right to remain silent when you are being questioned by a public official (like a police officer). So if you are on the receiving end of a police query, and you are unsure of how to answer (and certainly if you believe you are going to incriminate yourself by answering), then this right should be exercised. But you must actually verbalize the right to remain silent. In other words, you have to speak up and say something like, “I don’t want to talk you anymore,” or “I really don’t want to answer anymore of your questions.” Once this right is exercised (out loud, to the police officer), then questioning must stop.

The other fundamental right of the Miranda ruling is: 2) the right to consult with an attorney, or have an attorney present while the questioning occurs. Once you make it clear that you want to talk to an attorney, the officer must stop his or her questions.

Yes, it is entirely possible to waive (or give up) your Miranda rights. For instance, if you continue to answer a police officer’s questions after your Miranda warnings have been given, you have in effect waived these rights (and as a result, any statements made thereafter can be used against you in a court of law).

Miranda warnings are a short list of rights that a police officer must make you aware of once you are taken into police custody. Namely, the right to remain silent, and the right to seek the advice of an attorney (or have one present when you are being questioned). These rights are as fundamental to our way of life as anything else, and making sure that they are preserved should be of the highest order.

In most instances in the modern era, a police officer will ask a suspect to sign a waiver form that indicates that the person has in fact been read their Miranda rights, but that they wish to speak to the officer nonetheless. But this is just a safeguard that many jurisdictions have started doing to help protect them in the event that someone’s statements become an issue at a subsequent trial. The police do not have to obtain a written (or oral) waiver from the individual they are questioning after they have administered the Miranda warnings. The officer can continue to question the suspect, especially if the individual fails to assert his or her right to remain silent (or to consult with an attorney).

In the state of Missouri, there are three different types of criminal charges: Felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. The most serious type of crime that you can be charged with is a felony. These crimes can range anywhere from murder to burglary to certain types of fraud. The least serious crime for which you can be charged by the state is an infraction. Included in this category would be things like traffic violations (speeding, running a red light, etc.).

A misdemeanor crime in Missouri is therefore the “midlevel” category of crimes. They are not considered to be as serious as felonies, but have been determined to be more weighty than a simple infraction. Examples of a misdemeanor in Missouri would be Trespassing in the Third Degree (trespassing 3rd), Assault in the Third Degree (assault 3rd), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. But just because these offenses are not considered to be as serious as felony charges, that does not mean that the state doesn’t take them seriously. The main job of the prosecutor is to get as many convictions as he or she can. This means that they are not there to help the defendant charged with the crime; they are there to prosecute them.

Once you are charged with a misdemeanor (either by receiving a written citation from the police officer at the scene, or one that is mailed to your residence), a court date will be set, and your appearance will be demanded. If you do not appear at the designated time and place, an arrest warrant will be issued by the judge.

The laws of every state in the union make it clear that the legal age for consuming alcohol legally is twenty-one (21). If you are caught drinking below this age, you are subject to either a citation (like a ticket), or possibly arrest. But just because an individual is cited for underage drinking, it does not mean that their life is irrevocably altered. An experienced attorney might be able to get the charge reduced (or, depending on the facts of the case, get the case dismissed).

So let’s say you have a 17 year old son or daughter who attends the festivities of Mardi Gras in the Soulard area of St. Louis in February. While there, they drink a beer from a plastic cup that was handed to them by someone. The next thing you know, out of the blue, a plain-clothes cop comes up to your son or daughter and asks to see their ID. The cop then issues a citation on the spot for Minor in Possession and Drinking Underage.

The citation itself will look like any old ticket. Much your common speeding ticket, it will be yellowish-orange in color, and rectangular in shape. It will provide the citing officer’s name and badge number, the type of violation committed, and court date information. At this point, you have two option: 1) you can simply pay the fine listed on the court date, or by one of the various ways listed on the back of the ticket (like paying online or mail); or 2) you can hire an attorney to negotiate something with the prosecutor.

Yes, indeed you can. It may seem counter-intuitive, but you can be charged with trespass even if you made a mistake by going on to someone else’s property. Even though that may seem strange, there are definitely ways to handle the charge if you hire the right attorney.

Let me give you an example of a recently handled case: An individual went to drop something off to his girlfriend at her high school (he had graduated from the same school the year before). The girlfriend knew he was coming to drop the item off to her, but she did not tell her teacher. The young man pulled into the school parking lot, entered the front door, and starting walking towards the girl’s locker. A school security guard stopped him halfway down the hallway, and asked him what he was doing. After a few minutes of explanation, the security guard informed the young man that from now on, he would have to check into the front office before visiting anyone. It just so happened that a police officer was at the school that day, and he also spoke the scared kid. The young man leaves, gets back into his car, and drives away.

A few days later, the young man receives a citation in the mail for trespassing. The police officer decided that enough facts exist to charge him with such an offense, and now the kid is scared to death. Now keep in mind, this was a kid who had attended this same high school, still knew all the teachers, and was even on a first name basis with the school security guard. But nevertheless, he was charged. Does this seem fair? Probably not. But then this type of thing happens all the time.