my night in jail

gluetrap said:

My husband is cleet certified for private investigation, armed security and currently works loss prevention management for a major regional company, he works with cops all the time and i am very law and order as well. He also has his applications in with the sheriff's department hoping to get hired on.

Wonder if he did something to alienate the wrong cops. Cops are not immune to criminal activity. As much as I respect the difficulty of the job, it attracts a certain mentality. While there are screening measures to weed out the bad ones, Serpico demonstrated their fallibility.

Sounds like Rookie cops. There's a tendency for the young ones to play Rambo. God have mercy on the city that has just seen a large turnover in retirement of the seasoned cops who know their districts to the rookies whose youthful inexperience makes them prone to being bullies who rely on a reflexive us and them mentality. You can see it in the way they drive....

You have a right to know what your charged with. How can you have a paper demanding a court appearance with no charges on it? Can your husband phone the station and find out?

Maybe they're anxiously awaiting lab results on your medicine bag.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by clearwater]

At least I know the chemists in the OKC police lab to be ethical now that they got rid of their bad apple. They will not find drugs that aren't there.

no updates? glue, where are you?! hopefully, not in jail.

"The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings. Compulsory confessions will not constitute admissible evidence unless suspects have been made aware of and waived their "Miranda rights"."
Wiki

Get a Lawyer, and as was said by another person in this thread, get one that is not a public defender. In addition, Under NO circumstances sign Anything they give you in a little room, especially without your attorney. There is only ONE reason behind it when they take you into the interrogation room, and that is They want you to give them a confession because they do NOT have any/enough evidence. Fight this all the way, Get photographs of your nose, and make sure you have your witness(es) show up.
Fight it all the way. This type of Gestapo Balogna needs to be stopped.
I hope things work out for you...
Peace

They came to the window and asked me for my ID, well i didnt grab my purse so no wallet or registration, i dont keep it in the glovebox anymore because DS has rifled around in there one too many times.

Unfortunately, (I don't know where you are located so not sure of your jurisdiction) however, it is now required for individuals to carry photo id with them at all tiimes. If you do not have photo id, then you will be vulnerable to the paranoia and contempt of police = your experience.

I just tried to quote from your first post but the entire thread vanished so I will have to edit to comment further.

brb

ok reading further, your Native American? residing in Texas?

Oh and i still had the rubbermaid tub in the very back of the car with the camping cooking and eating suppplies, some pots and pans, salt and pepper, a can opener, wet wipes, paper towels, silverware, plastic plates, and 2 cheap ass dollar store steak.kitchen knives, they threatened me with concealed weapons charges but i think they were bluffing, i hope they were anyway.

ok well the issue of carrying a kitchen knife means very little. 1) you did not use it in a threatening manner and 2) they were part of camping equipment... the odds are stacked against them to prove the elements of the alleged offence...

brb have to copy and paste from your first thread... *sigh

I was never read my rights, i still dont know what i have been charged with because the bond was over 800 dollars even though the single paper they gave me with a charge said $104 for that one outstanding ticket. They never told me what i was charged with or why.

Alright!! *You can RELAX!
If you were not read your MIRANDA Rights, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. It is null and void.

Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you your Miranda Rights. He or She must also make sure that you understand them.

I suggest you source an advocate for Human Rights, esp the organisations who focus upon Native American Indian Rights... even if you don't wish to make a claim against the state, you need to inform them of the abuse of process.


all the best






[edit on 12-4-2007 by NJE777]

[edit on 12-4-2007 by NJE777]

Originally posted by NJE777
Alright!! *You can RELAX!
If you were not read your MIRANDA Rights, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. It is null and void.

Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you your Miranda Rights. He or She must also make sure that you understand them.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Police officers no longer “read you your rights” at the scene of arrest as too many folks claim they don’t get their rights read to them. So now they do it in the Booking area of the Jail, it is normally done via a video taped message.

Originally posted by defcon5
Where do you get this nonsense from? Police officers no longer “read you your rights” at the scene of arrest as too many folks claim they don’t get their rights read to them. So now they do it in the Booking area of the Jail, it is normally done via a video taped message.

Hi Defcon, it is a internationally recognised procedural requirement. Are you claiming Miranda is no longer due process?

cheers

Originally posted by NJE777
Hi Defcon, it is a internationally recognised procedural requirement. Are you claiming Miranda is no longer due process?

cheers

No, I am claiming that the officers are not responsible for reading it to people upon arrest anymore. They are also allowed to ask you things at that time, but you are not required to answer them. If you volunteer info then that is your tough luck. All the folks in the booking area of the jail are read their rights via video taped message as a group like once an hour.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by NJE777
Hi Defcon, it is a internationally recognised procedural requirement. Are you claiming Miranda is no longer due process?
cheers

No

Oh thank fudge for that, for a moment I thought I had my head up my anus

I am claiming that the officers are not responsible for reading it to people upon arrest anymore. They are also allowed to ask you things at that time, but you are not required to answer them. If you volunteer info then that is your tough luck.

No, I am not absolutely sure it is a case of 'tough luck'... in my procedural experience, it would be... inadmissable

All the folks in the booking area of the jail are read their rights via video taped message as a group like once an hour.

So, it is only once the person is in the booking area of jail, their rights are read...once an hour? Prior to that, the person is taken in without caution?

Either way, it appears the OP is very unclear of what charges have been put forward, if in fact, any have at all. And that seems to indicate procedural error.



[edit on 12-4-2007 by NJE777]

Originally posted by NJE777
No, I am not absolutely sure it is a case of 'tough luck'... in my procedural experience, it would be... inadmissible

The way I see it, you and I could sit here for the next 10 years, and argue the finer points of your, my, and the actual interpretation of the law. So lets just skip all of that and go with the facts. The fact is that its read on video, in the booking area, in most places, and that has been upheld by law. I know for a fact its done this way, and if you feel its not legal then you need to take it up with the court system, not with me.

Originally posted by NJE777
Prior to that, the person is taken in without caution?

I don’t claim to understand it, but if you want an even further zinger to add to it, I’ll tell you this. Whatever you say in the back of the police car is admissible as evidence as well. Some of the folks I know, in this field, place a tape recorder in the back of their car, then put two suspects in the car. They record the conversation between the two folks, without their knowledge, and its somehow admissible in court.

So again….
These are the facts:

Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. In 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture" (Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning

My advise is: “don’t learn the law from TV shows”…

Originally posted by NJE777
Either way, it appears the OP is very unclear of what charges have been put forward, if in fact, any have at all. And that seems to indicate procedural error.

It's very clear!
She had a bench warrant for her arrest, end of subject...
The second that a bench warrant showed up on her record, the rest was a forgone conclusion. The police officers have no choice but to bring you in if you have a bench warrant, period. All the rest of the stuff was them,”stacking charges”, which is something that they do to run up the highest number of offences so you cannot plea out as easily.

[edit on 4/12/2007 by defcon5]

Get a civil attorney ASAP.

I was wrongfully incarcerated in Texas back in 2003, and I'll spare you the details of that horrific situation, but there is a two year statue of limitations on civil case related to abuses.

There have been several instances of Texas law enforcement overstepping the bounds of decency as of late - and I highly recommend you speak to a licensed professional at your earliest convienence.

Best of luck.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by GENERAL EYES]

Originally posted by defcon5

My advise is: “don’t learn the law from TV shows”…

oh how funny... very funny

Actually, you would be very surprised just how influencial tv is...

The Court upheld the rule in Miranda against a federal statute that tried to overrule it. Justice Rehnquist was particularly moved by Miranda’s acceptance within popular culture. Presumably this is a reference to television crime shows. This may open up an interesting line of jurisprudence
Criminal Law and Procedure Decisions of the October 1999-2000 Supreme Court Term

Defcon… I couldn’t find any of this nonsense on TV???
So I had to have a little look elsewhere…

Persons who are questioned while they are in custody must be given the Miranda warnings. Miranda applies to ''questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).

And here is the grey area yor relying upon and obviously operate in?…however…

Clearly, a suspect detained in jail is in custody, even if the detention is for some offense other than the one about which he is questioned.< Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968) If he is placed under arrest, even if he is in his own home, the questioning is custodial.< Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969) (four policemen entered suspect's bedroom at 4 a.m. and questioned him; though not formally arrested, he was in custody). But the fact that a suspect may be present in a police station does not, in the absence of indicia that he was in custody, mean that the questioning is custodial,

Originally posted by NJE777
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers

Here is where you are wrong….
It has to meet two criteria. First they have to be detained, second they have to be formally interrogated, for Miranda to apply.

Miranda Warning
Miranda warnings are "triggered", or apply and have to be read, if TWO elements are present: CUSTODY and INTERROGATION. Both are more difficult to define than what might appear at first glance. It is important to note that BOTH elements must be present at the same time, what might be called CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION, although for purposes of understanding, we will treat each term separately.

Again, this is how it’s done the US now. Every person here understands that they are not required to talk to the police prior to having an attorney, Miranda is simply a formality. The question is, was she being interrogated. I don’t see where, in her story, that they were applying pressure to her to answer questions, nor asking questions directly related to the reason for her arrest. So, does their questioning of basic facts constitute a formal interrogation?

CUSTODY is the Miranda equivalent of arrest. It does not include traffic stops or brief field interviews based on reasonable suspicion. Nor does it apply to telephone calls, since the suspect is always free to hang up. There is no litmus test (checklist), but an objective test is used to determine if custody occurs. The officer's subjective intent to arrest does not matter. What matters is if, objectively, a reasonable person would believe that an officer conveyed, by words or actions, that a suspect is not free to leave. It also does not matter why the suspect is in custody. Warnings must be given if the suspect is arrested or in jail for one crime and being questioned for another crime.

Now obviously this person was detained, so they the matter of custody applies to her. But it’s the matter of interrogation that she is going to lose this argument on.

INTERROGATION is questioning that goes beyond the simple "What happened" and "What did you do, see, or hear?" to questions that imply a suspect's involvement in crime. Questions about motive, alibi, ability, or opportunity to do the crime are all examples of interrogation, such as "Where were you on the night of October 13th?" Usually, this insinuating or judgmental tone is prefaced by rapport-building, or treating the suspect like family.

She was not asked motive, alibi, and the like. At no point were interrogation tactics used on here according to her own post on the subject:

Interrogation inherently involves PERSUASION or PRESSURE. The ultimate goal of interrogation is to obtain a confession, or at least an admission (soft confession)..., anything that would implicate the suspect in criminal behavior. It can safely be assumed nobody would voluntarily implicate themselves to police, but interrogation necessarily involves persuading or convincing a person that it would be in their best interests to do so. Interrogation is changing a person's mind so that they want to tell the police everything they did wrong, and getting them to help convict themselves.

Obviously, according to this definition, a formal interrogation did not occur in this instance, but rather a field interview…

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
There have been several instances of Texas law enforcement overstepping the bounds of decency as of late - and I highly recommend you speak to a licensed professional at your earliest convienence.

Now it is true enough that the police in Texas are obviously having some issues that probably require the involvement of a Federal Internal Affairs investigation. I did not see that she lived in Texas at the onset of this thread. Their police officers have a bad habit of jumping in front of cars so they can pump off a few rounds, and say the driver was assaulting them with a deadly weapon.

This is a conspiracy?
sorry to hear that you were mistreated by the cops but this happens to good people all the time.
I could tell you some stories to make you dislike police (if you dont already now) and i bet more people on this board could also.

All you need is a lawyer, explain to him the situation, because unless any of the members on this board are lawyers (good ones, not public defenders! ha) so you can get some helpfull legal advice if thats what you need.
Try being a young black male!!
good luck with your case.

Originally posted by defcon5
It is a crime now to not have an ID on you at all times, and present it when asked for by a law enforcement officer.

You are mistaken. It is not a crime to not have a valid ID on you at all times. The only exceptions are if you are driving a car you need a drivers license and registration, if you are in a bar, purchasing alcohol, lottery tickets, or cigarettes.

Supreme Court ruling -

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality MAY NOT be required to state his name or SHOW IDENTIFICATION. All nine justices also agreed that under the Court's prior precedents, the police could ask a person who has been subject to a Terry stop for his NAME." - CNN

www.cnn.com...

Please brush up on your facts Defcon5.

Originally posted by NJE777
Unfortunately, (I don't know where you are located so not sure of your jurisdiction) however, it is now required for individuals to carry photo id with them at all tiimes. If you do not have photo id, then you will be vulnerable to the paranoia and contempt of police = your experience.

Again it is not against the law not to show id! Far from it. Please read the supreme court ruling above!


[edit on 4-17-2007 by CPYKOmega]

i think the original poster should look at these sites.

Texas American Civil Liberties Union

BUSTED: Citizen's Guide to Surviving a Police Encounter

WARNING: the Video is 45 Minutes long, i dont know the exact filesize but i know it's huge for those on dial up. i will try to find somewhere that has it hosted for direct download.

Right Click and "Save As"

*EDIT- Added new link

[edit on 17-4-2007 by four20snakeman]

I do know this, due to the fact that my dad was a Dallas cop for 30 years. Now if your driving without a license thats a give in, go to jail and even if you have your license and you dont have insurance, you can go to jail and have your car impounded
Things have changed a LOT in the last 5-10 years in Texas and I assume other states as well. My brother got pulled over driving my truck one day because i forgot to get it inspected in time.
I was with him when this happened and there were no other infractions. The cop said, If i want to I can take your brother to jail and impound your truck if I decided to do that, I was unsure how much things changed so I didnt argue.
A few weeks later I asked my dad if what he said was true and he said it was not just a few years ago when he retired but he would call his former Captain in Dallas and ask him what he thought.
He called me back after speaking to him and said yes, in the last few years the laws have changed dramatically and he was telling the truth.
Basically he said that a cop can take you to jail for anything at all, now whether the DA's push the case is a different story.
Now, this is Texas, each states laws vary so there ya go.
This girl gluetrap, had 3 violations plus the bench warrant so the cops were well within their rights to have her booked.
As far as the Miranda rights go, last I heard you do have to have them read to you at some point during the arrest or booking but do you know how many people claim they werent read their rights to get out of jail?
happens quite a bit, even for minor infractions.




[edit on 17-4-2007 by Kr0n0s]

It is my understanding (as a non-lawyer) that Miranda rights need not be read before, during or even after arrest. They only must be read before any official questioning is done by the police.

If someone let they're dog off it's leash at a park, knowing it's illegal, then you deserve to go to jail.
Stop doing #, knowing you could get in trouble, and then cry about it later, because "oh jails horrible!"

NO #.
It's not meant to be a 5 star hotel.