FiveM - Miranda Warning
Author:
{EE} Shoot
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.
The language used in a Miranda warning was derived from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. The specific language used in the warning varies between jurisdictions, but the warning is deemed adequate as long as the defendant's rights are properly disclosed such that any waiver of those rights by the defendant is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. For example, the warning may be phrased as follows:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if available. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you free of charge if available. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law. Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not ordinarily use that person's statements as evidence against them in a criminal trial.
If Police questioning a subject held in police custody or custodial interrogation, and the police fail to advise subject before questioning of their rights, all evidence gathered during questioning shall be considered inadmissible in a court of law.