Background: I drive a automatic v6 mustang that I've been driving for 3 years, driving in total for 5. No prior tickets on my record. The officer did write 35 in a 35 on the ticket. He did not read me my miranda rights. I was wondering what an officer thinks of this defense and if it would hold up in court. Am I coming off as a prick who thinks he knows the law and is trying to teach the court room? I am in my senior year finishing up my business law degree, so I do have a little knowledge in the field. Thanks for your responses.
Hello your honor,
To start my defense I would like to ask Officer Carlos a question, if possible?
Officer Carlos did you ever tell me that I have the right to remain silent after you handcuffed me? (NO)
I would first like to start my defense by stating that a key procedure required by law, the reading of the Miranda Rights to a person under custodial interrogation, was not done by the arresting officers. Officer Carlos just admitted to not ever telling me I have the right to remain silent, 1 of the 5 parts of the Miranda Rights. He did tell me immediately that I’m under arrest and placed handcuffs on me as soon as the interaction between me and both officers began.
I have filed a complaint with the LAPD in regards to this misconduct and the failure of both officers to adhere to the policies set in place by litigation to ensure my constitutional rights are upheld.
Although this is a traffic stop, and Miranda Rights do not routinely apply to traffic stops, the landmark case Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense (as is my case), once they are in custody, (as I was, the second I got out of my vehicle and placed into handcuffs, denying me my freedom of liberty, and subsequently, denying me the right to record the events between me and both police officers) the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to me pursuant to the decision inMiranda v. Arizona(1966), as both of the requirements of the Berkemer v. McCarty case are satisfied.
This means that pursuant to the Miranda Rule, anything the officer testifies I said with the aim of bringing forward as evidence for the prosecution of these crimes during the subsequent illegal custodial interrogation, is inadmissible in this court of law by the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, which set the precedent of the Miranda Rule into effect.
There were no words spoken between me and either officers prior to Officer Carlos putting me in handcuffs and beginning his custodial interrogation of me, other than the officers telling me I’m being detained and placing me in handcuffs.
I will now begin relaying the events that happened that night. I was driving at the speed limit of 35 MPH coming from (college) going northbound on Reseda Blvd, and wanted to get some yogurt. There was a steady flow of traffic on Reseda boulevard going northbound. I passed the police officers on burbank/reseda boulevard traveling northbound at the speed limit.
As I pulled into the private parking lot of the yogurt place that was my destination and exited my vehicle Officer Carlos ran towards me and handcuffed me. Not one word had been exchanged between either me, Officer Carlos, or Officer Carlos’s partner up to this point, and no sirens had been turned on in the parking lot. They told me I was being detained and began interrogating me without reading the five required parts of the Miranda Rights. This again made me feel very scared,as I knew that miranda rights were required to be read for a suspect being under arrest and interrogated by the police, even in traffic stops when the offense is a misdemeanor.
Both officers began their interrogation immediately and repeatedly tried to coerce me into admitting false guilt by using phrases like “just tell us you were racing and we’ll be cool about it” while I was handcuffed. Up until that point I had no idea what crime I had committed, as I was going the speed limit not breaking any traffic rules, driving with the flow of traffic. I repeatedly denied their accusations and kept saying how I was going the speed limit minding my own business.
The officer had not pulled over the car he was accusing me of racing, I had absolutely no idea why I was in handcuffs, being made to admit guilt to a crime I had not committed. The officer did not specify in the ticket anything other than the car I was attempting to race was a “black mercedes” and that I had “burned rubber” although I was traveling the speed limit of 35 mph. The intersection was very crowded with many black vehicles.
To this day I have no clue what black mercedes the officer accuses me of attempting to race. I am not guilty your honor and I told the officer that as well. He smiled as he handed me the ticket, and began to laugh saying he will see me in court.
Thank you for taking the time and consideration to listen to me your honor.
Hello your honor,
To start my defense I would like to ask Officer Carlos a question, if possible?
Officer Carlos did you ever tell me that I have the right to remain silent after you handcuffed me? (NO)
I would first like to start my defense by stating that a key procedure required by law, the reading of the Miranda Rights to a person under custodial interrogation, was not done by the arresting officers. Officer Carlos just admitted to not ever telling me I have the right to remain silent, 1 of the 5 parts of the Miranda Rights. He did tell me immediately that I’m under arrest and placed handcuffs on me as soon as the interaction between me and both officers began.
I have filed a complaint with the LAPD in regards to this misconduct and the failure of both officers to adhere to the policies set in place by litigation to ensure my constitutional rights are upheld.
Although this is a traffic stop, and Miranda Rights do not routinely apply to traffic stops, the landmark case Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense (as is my case), once they are in custody, (as I was, the second I got out of my vehicle and placed into handcuffs, denying me my freedom of liberty, and subsequently, denying me the right to record the events between me and both police officers) the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to me pursuant to the decision inMiranda v. Arizona(1966), as both of the requirements of the Berkemer v. McCarty case are satisfied.
This means that pursuant to the Miranda Rule, anything the officer testifies I said with the aim of bringing forward as evidence for the prosecution of these crimes during the subsequent illegal custodial interrogation, is inadmissible in this court of law by the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, which set the precedent of the Miranda Rule into effect.
There were no words spoken between me and either officers prior to Officer Carlos putting me in handcuffs and beginning his custodial interrogation of me, other than the officers telling me I’m being detained and placing me in handcuffs.
I will now begin relaying the events that happened that night. I was driving at the speed limit of 35 MPH coming from (college) going northbound on Reseda Blvd, and wanted to get some yogurt. There was a steady flow of traffic on Reseda boulevard going northbound. I passed the police officers on burbank/reseda boulevard traveling northbound at the speed limit.
As I pulled into the private parking lot of the yogurt place that was my destination and exited my vehicle Officer Carlos ran towards me and handcuffed me. Not one word had been exchanged between either me, Officer Carlos, or Officer Carlos’s partner up to this point, and no sirens had been turned on in the parking lot. They told me I was being detained and began interrogating me without reading the five required parts of the Miranda Rights. This again made me feel very scared,as I knew that miranda rights were required to be read for a suspect being under arrest and interrogated by the police, even in traffic stops when the offense is a misdemeanor.
Both officers began their interrogation immediately and repeatedly tried to coerce me into admitting false guilt by using phrases like “just tell us you were racing and we’ll be cool about it” while I was handcuffed. Up until that point I had no idea what crime I had committed, as I was going the speed limit not breaking any traffic rules, driving with the flow of traffic. I repeatedly denied their accusations and kept saying how I was going the speed limit minding my own business.
The officer had not pulled over the car he was accusing me of racing, I had absolutely no idea why I was in handcuffs, being made to admit guilt to a crime I had not committed. The officer did not specify in the ticket anything other than the car I was attempting to race was a “black mercedes” and that I had “burned rubber” although I was traveling the speed limit of 35 mph. The intersection was very crowded with many black vehicles.
To this day I have no clue what black mercedes the officer accuses me of attempting to race. I am not guilty your honor and I told the officer that as well. He smiled as he handed me the ticket, and began to laugh saying he will see me in court.
Thank you for taking the time and consideration to listen to me your honor.
