Being arrested

And let's be specific about what we're talking about here. A Miranda violation is not a get out of jail free card. Even if the judge/appellate court finds that your 5A rights were violated because you weren't properly Mirandized, it does not mean you necessarily walk away. At the trial level, it simply means that the prosecutor cannot use or refer to any statements you may have made after the moment when you were supposed to have been Mirandized and were not - and the appellate court may, of course, order a new trial and specify that such statements be excluded from presentation in the retrial.

But it's rare that a Miranda violation will inherently result in a prejudicial dismissal (prejudicial dismissal means the case cannot be retried).
 
@Spats - if memory serves, most PD's started doing the early Miranda readings to make it easier to conduct officer training. It can be quite murky indeed for the officer conducting an interview to pick that specific point at which a witness/interviewee becomes a custodial suspect/interrogatee. Much easier to tell them to Mirandize anyone they speak with who they think might be involved with the crime being investigated, methinks.
 
First off he was not arrested, only detained for further investigation. After the investigation found he was not intoxicated he was let go. No questions asked pertaining to the DUI then no Miranda. What the officer SHOULD have done is as soon as he made the determination he was making an investigation he should have read him Miranda, makes trial easy for officer and DA. If the officer asked any questions pertaining to the DUI and did not give Miranda then any statements made would be inadmissible.
 
He could've taken him straight to the ER where they could have drawn blood and gotten their sobriety test, while addressing the potential medical concerns. This addresses everything, including potential liability for taking someone in custody who was injured thereby depriving them of medical treatment.
Click to expand...

This

IMO the officer not only put the OP in danger by not calling an ambo and at least giving him the choice of going to the ER but also opened himself and his department up to liability. If the OP had say had a blood clot from the crash and while in detention and he died, then the family could have filed a wrongful death suit and they probably would have gotten a big pay out.

I don't know how they do things where the OP lives but my wife was in a car accident last year, BEFORE the field sobriety test (given to both drivers involved) the EMS people looked at both drivers to make sure there was no evident health issue.

I just find it unconscionable that the OP said he had hit his head and was not given the choice to be taken to the ER.


Beyond that though you can always ask for a lawyer if they put the cuffs on you and wish to take you to another location for whatever reason.
 
One further point on the Miranda warning --- assuming one is required, violation does not mean the charge is dismissed. It means suppression of the statement made in violation or any resulting "fruit of the poisonous tree."

I don't know about Arkansas's implied consent law but, in my state, if you don't consent to the test, your license is automatically suspended and the officer may still cite/arrest you for DUI based on his or her observations. You can take it to trial but then the fact finder is going to assume you refused because you were drunk (real life here, not the "presumed innocent" instruction given to jurors).
 
KyJim said:
I don't know about Arkansas's implied consent law but, in my state, if you don't consent to the test, your license is automatically suspended and the officer may still cite/arrest you for DUI based on his or her observations.
Click to expand...
That's very similar to ours. There are several code sections that come into play, such as the ones on suspending the DL (which is automatic here, too), but here's the one to which I was referring:
(a) Any person who operates a motor vehicle or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of § 5-65-203, to one (1) or more chemical tests of his or her blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or controlled substance content of his or her breath or blood if:

(1) The person is arrested for any offense arising out of an act alleged to have been committed while the person was driving while intoxicated or driving while there was an alcohol concentration of eight hundredths (0.08) or more in the person's breath or blood;

(2) The person is involved in an accident while operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle; or

(3) At the time the person is arrested for driving while intoxicated, the law enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person, while operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, is intoxicated or has an alcohol concentration of eight hundredths (0.08) or more in the person's breath or blood.

(b) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him or her incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided by subsection (a) of this section, and one (1) or more chemical tests may be administered subject to the provisions of § 5-65-203.
Click to expand...
A.C.A. § 5-65-202

Additionally, under Arkansas law, the court or the jury may take the defendant's refusal to submit to chemical testing as evidence of guilt.
 
Well, too many people watch court television shows i can see... The police used their discretion and acted accordingly and within the laws. And obviously not taking the O.P. straight to the hospital had no ill effects. Theres not a lot they do for you for a concussion other than charge you to tell you, you have a concussion. Also think about how many times a year a LEO hears "i hit my head officer, honestly" when they show up at an accident and end up giving a DWI...
 
Is Arrest Necessary

Is SCOTUS about to decide something on when rights must be given; whether a full arrest or significant interference with freedom suffices?
 
Last edited:
When the officer took me in, I blew a 0.0 as I stated earlier. The cop was pretty mad, he kept saying the machine was broke. I failed the field test horribly like I knew I would. He kept saying something about an officer coming in doing a more specialized sobriety test. In the end he gave me a ticket for reckless driving and a lecture about how he just knew I wasn't telling the truth. Another thing that upset me, he had his gf/wife with him the whole time. Our wonder police system.
 
When the officer took me in, I blew a 0.0 as I stated earlier. The cop was pretty mad, he kept saying the machine was broke. I failed the field test horribly like I knew I would. He kept saying something about an officer coming in doing a more specialized sobriety test. In the end he gave me a ticket for reckless driving and a lecture about how he just knew I wasn't telling the truth.
Click to expand...
What you're describing is NOT an arrest. You may have reason to be aggrieved that he did not request an ambulance for your injury, but nothing about what you've described screams of a 4A or 5A violation to me. Btw...there are lots of cops love to lecture and berate and generally make the citizens before them feel like dirt - but this isn't a violation of your rights.

Another thing that upset me, he had his gf/wife with him the whole time. Our wonder police system.
Click to expand...
If he was off duty at the time he arrived at the scene, isn't that to be expected? What was he supposed to do with her?
 
1hogfan83
I don't Monday morning quarterback my brothers in blue because I don't know the totality of the incident but our departmental procedure calls for us to render medical assistance before we arrest. If you were treated badly and if what you posted is true than I feel that you were. You can file an internal investigation. I’m sorry that you treated badly but you have to understand that we as Law enforcement officer have by our natures and experience a distrusting nature, it comes with the job. We tend to forget we serve the people not the other way around. I see this a lot with younger Deputies in my department. I try to mentor them but most have no time to listen to an old salt like myself they are busy saving the world. Anyway not all of us are like the one you dealt with.
 
He was in blues and had a police cruiser. The other cop with him was very nice, unfortunately he didn't get there before "my friend." I've met several very nice police officers, I would judge each one individually. And as for being arrested, if im in cuffs in his cruiser, going down the road, im arrested.
 
No you are detained pending investigation which could lead to your arrest. You are not considered to be under arrest until we tell you are under arrest. It goes something like this sir at this time I am charging you with (Insert charge here).I will then read you your Miranda rights per our policy. As noted earlier Miranda’s do not have to be read right away but it is our policy. not trying to pick a fight with but unless he stated you are under arrest and told what you being charged with you were not under arrest.
 
Last edited:
The other cop with him was very nice, unfortunately he didn't get there before "my friend." I've met several very nice police officers, I would judge each one individually.
Click to expand...
It isn't only detectives in dimly lit interrogation rooms that use the good cop/bad cop gambit.
 
Oh well, I got one on him! He sniffed all the bottles in my my truck, including a spit bottle that was about a month old. It had been opened in quite some time either. Lol. I have a bad habbit of not throwing my bottles away, that'll show him!
 
Was he arrested? Yes.

In Arkansas at least, a citation (criminal, traffic or civil) is (at least was) an arrest on (usually) signature bond. ie a ticket for speeding means you're being arrested but you're not taken into custody, you're being released on your signature, a promise to appear before the magistrate at a later date.

There is nothing (again was? nothing I doubt it's changed) to preclude an officer from taking you into physical custody for speeding or any other offense. Obviously that wouldn't be practical or politically popular. So typically you're only taken into custody for more "serious" offenses.

The line at which "serious" takes over from "less serious" varies between departments, typically based on the political climate. Example, in some JDs, small amounts of marijuana might result in a citation. In others, physical arrest. Arkansas, for example, went back and forth in the 90s about driving on suspended licenses. At one point it was "cite and call a licensed driver". Then switched to "physical arrest and impound the car, even if there's a licensed driver available". It went back and forth depending on the arguments about "making the voters happy/angry" and "not having enough space in the county graybar".

In this scenario described, it certainly would have been prudent for the officer to have the subject evaluated by paramedics. The girlfriend ride-along is a non-issue. The description of the officer being "mad" that the subject didn't turn up DWI is a clear sign of young officer "gung-ho-itis". Once you do a few hundred DWIs you become less emotional about the thing. I personally never found anything useful or positive or gratifying about giving someone a lecture, particularly a lecture about "lying to me". Young cops have to learn that most people they contact ARE lying to them. It's part of the job. They probably also have to learn that they're not your father. A lecture from an officer, who's job it is to arrest you, is not positive reinforcement. I can't imagine it doing much of anything except turning the person against that and every other LEO.

OP, glad you got away with just a cite. Hope you're ok. Really glad you didn't injure or kill someone. Sorry if the officer was a little too wet behind the Sam Brown.


Sgt Lumpy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top