Thus, although the police must wait for her lawyer to be present to persist with the signature request, they may continue questioning her for as long as she is willing to speak with them. A suspect's assertion of the right to counsel ceases to apply if there is a break in incarceration.
If the crime that is being investigated is a violent offense, the police can hold the minor for questioning and investigation for up to 24 hours. Can the Police Question a Minor Without a Parent or Lawyer Present?
General Rule: Questioning Must Stop. Generally, the police must immediately stop probing if the detainee invokes either the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. If the suspect invokes the latter, questioning must cease until counsel is available.
The police can make you wait for legal advice in serious cases, but only if a senior officer agrees. The longest you can be made to wait before getting legal advice is 36 hours after arriving at the police station (or 48 hours for suspected terrorism).
Nationwide, the Justice Department and its U.S. Attorney’s offices have prosecuted many terrorism cases in recent months and years . Last year, Human Rights First published a comprehensive study on prosecuting terrorism in federal court from 9/11 through the end of 2007.
Al Kassar, who had been extradited on these charges from Spain, and the co-defendant, who had been extradited from Romania (the first ever to the United States on terrorism charges), were sentenced to 30 and 25 years in prison, respectively.
Oussama Kassir: On May 12, 2009, Oussama Kassir was convicted of charges related to his participation in an effort to establish a jihad training camp in Oregon and his operation of several terrorist Web sites containing instructions about how to make bombs and poisons . Kassir was found guilty of all 11 charges against him, including providing material support to al-Qaeda and distributing information on explosives and weapons of mass destruction.
26, 2009, Christopher Paul was sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring to use explosives against targets in Europe and the United States. Paul joined al-Qaeda in the early 1990s, fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia and conspired with others to target Americans both at home and abroad.
The defendants were sentenced to substantial prison terms. Yousef concocted the plan with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is currently detained at Guantanamo Bay and has been indicted in SDNY for the Manila Air conspiracy since 1996.
The lead defendant, Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the "Blind Sheikh," was sentenced ...
U.S. v. Viktor Bout: On April 9, 2008, international arms dealer Viktor Bout was arrested by Thai authorities on a provisional arrest warrant based on an SDNY complaint, which charged conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Bout was later indicted for, among other things, conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) to be used to kill Americans in Colombia. Bout has been in custody in Thailand since March 6, 2008, pending an extradition request by the United States.*
A suspect's assertion of the right to counsel ceases to apply if there is a break in incarceration. The assertion of the right doesn't carry over to the next detention. For example, assume Glen invokes his right to counsel and is released from custody.
If a detainee invokes the right to counsel for only a limited purpose, the police may interrogate "around" that purpose. For example, suppose that, after being Mirandized, Becky doesn't claim her Miranda rights and answers questions.
What it means to "honor" the right to remain silent after a suspect invokes it isn't always entirely clear. Courts consider the circumstances of renewed questioning, including the passage of time, whether the police gave fresh Miranda warnings, and whether they asked questions about a different crime. For example, suppose the police arrest George ...
If Glen invokes his right to counsel while captive in jail and officers return several hours later and begin questioning him again, while he is still in jail, then they have violated Miranda. However, suppose Glen has been serving time in prison when officers first approach him.
Generally, the police must immediately stop probing if the detainee invokes either the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. If the suspect invokes the latter, questioning must cease until counsel is available. But if the detainee invokes only the right to remain silent, the police may reinitiate questioning at a later time, provided that they honor the right to remain silent.
Any Time Now. There's no time limit for invoking Miranda rights. After receiving the warnings, a detainee may invoke the rights immediately or after answering some questions. Whenever that invocation occurs, the police must stop investigative questioning.
Once someone detained by the police invokes their Miranda rights by expressing a desire to remain silent, have counsel present, or both, the police must stop the interrogation. But this isn't necessarily the end of the story: Some circumstances allow the prosecution to use statements a suspect makes after having invoked Miranda. These circumstances constitute a waiver of Miranda rights. (Sometimes prosecutors can use even statements obtained in violation of Miranda .)
An estimated 81 percent of suspects waive their Miranda rights. Within this group, an estimated 68 percent completed their interrogations without invoking their Miranda rights, while 13 percent initially waived their rights but later invoked them.18 Many captured terrorism suspects also fall into this category, waiving their Miranda rights and continuing to talk freely to interrogators.
Further, law enforcement interrogators can forego providing Miranda warnings when necessary, either by invoking the “ Public Safety Exception,” or if they do not use the suspect’s un-Mirandized statements in court.
Law enforcement interrogators can also question a suspect without providing a Miranda warning when the questions are reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety. In such cases, the un-Mirandized statements may still be used in court.
Contrary to what some claim, law enforcement officials can interrogate suspects before giving them Miranda warnings. As Judge Leonard B. Sands has explained, “Miranda only prevents an unwarned or involuntary statement from being used as evidence in a domestic criminal trial; it does not mean that such statements are never to be elicited in the first place.”11 In other words, law enforcement interrogators can question a suspect without Miranda warnings but the suspect’s unwarned statements will not usually be admissible in court.
Even when terrorism suspects invoke their Miranda rights, many still coopera te with investigators, providing intelligence that informs targeting and capture operations, as well as future prosecutions and convictions.
If the child is under the age of 12, the police can only hold the minor in the police station for up to 6 hours. If the minor is between the ages of 12 and 16, the police can only hold the minor child at the police station for up to 12 hours if the crime that is being investigated is a non-violent offense.
The same applies to what is commonly considered to be a minor and what is commonly considered to be an adult. In the real world, 18 years old is the cut-off between being a minor and being an adult.
Generally yes. However, the answer may change depending on the age of the minor and what they are being charged with. Several years ago, news organizations released several reports concerning false confessions by juveniles. These reports spurred a national discussion surrounding the issue of minors making confessions to the police.
If the statement is not videotaped, it will not be admissible in court. As you can tell, nothing in the law talks about parents. The only reference to parents is that Illinois law does require that the police make a “reasonable attempt” to contact a parent or a legal guardian before interrogating a minor.
Just like with any criminal suspect, the police can arrest a minor if they suspect that they committed a crime and can take them down to the station for investigation. Questioning may end up being part of the investigation.
For most federal crimes, the statute of limitations is five years. Bank fraud has a statute of limitations of ten years. Immigration violations and arson are also subject to a ten year limit.
A statute of limitations says how long after an offense a person can be indicted, an indictment being a document that officially charges a person with a crime.
Kidnapping also has a limit of ten years, or the child’s lifetime, whichever is longer. Art theft has a longer statute of limitations, twenty years. For capital offenses, aka offenses where you can get the death penalty, there is no limit.
Federal investigations are usually stressful. With agents watching your every move, bothering you at unpredictable hours for questioning and searches, and trying to get you to say or do things that help their case, it is normal to wonder when the investigation will end.
The longest you can be made to wait before getting legal advice is 36 hours after arriving at the police station (or 48 hours for suspected terrorism).
You have the right to free legal advice if you are questioned by the police.
You may be offered legal advice over the phone instead of a duty solicitor if you’re suspected of having committed a less serious offence, eg being disorderly. The advice is free and independent of the police.
One of the things a cop will never say to a suspect is the truth such as , “I’ll lie to you , don’t stop talking.”
If you are arrested, you have to answer the book in questions about your name, date of birth, national origin, birthplace and other identification items . But you are not required to answer any question about what you were arrested for, once you invoke your right to remain silent, no further incriminating questions should be asked. Failure to answer the book in questions usually results in you being placed in a holding cell with no access to a phone because the phone call comes after book in is complete. Every couple hours if the detention officers are not busy, they will cone ask you if you are ready to complete book in and make your phone call. Otherwise you just sit.
Being a potential witness, with no possible culpability of your own is a bit different. You can be suppenoaed to appea
When this happens be respectful, assert you 5th Amendment rights, and advise them that you will answer questions only when you have an attorney that is representing you present.
Can the police…..yes. Seriously police can not refuse to investigate a request as you indicated. Serious felonies excluded which would receive full attention from any department I view your question more along the lines of issues that do not necessarily involve person injury other felonies.
It depends on whether you are a “person of interest” who they think might give them details about the case or if you are an actual suspect. Suspects will be usually be contacted in person. Other people who might have information will be called or even emailed if they have that information. The request will be to call them and if you have any real information then they will want a face to face.
Yes, if the person doesn't mind getting arrested. But if the person either asks for an attorney or answers at least some questions it is probable that no arrest will be made until the investigation is complete.
The right to be told the identity of arresting officers. The right to communicate by telephone with an attorney, family, friends or a bondsperson. The right to remain silent if questioned by police. The right to be represented by an attorney before speaking with police.
Suspects may invoke the right to remain silent by telling officers that they do not wish to answer any questions, or that they wish to say nothing until their attorney is present. If an officer continues to ask questions, the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights have been violated and any statements elicited from the suspect are inadmissible in court.
An arrest warrant is a document that authorizes police to arrest a person that they suspect has committed a crime. A magistrate will issue an arrest warrant if a police officer submits a sworn affidavit showing probable cause that a specific crime has been committed by the person named in the warrant. Can I be arrested without an arrest warrant? ...
Second, most jurisdictions require an officer to obtain a warrant to arrest a suspect for a misdemeanor offense, unless the misdemeanor was committed in the officer's presence.
If an arrest warrant was required and was not obtained before the arrest, or if the arrest warrant was issued without a showing of probable cause, a suspect may contest the validity of the arrest. A person will not be set free because their arrest was illegal.
Can I be arrested without an arrest warrant? Yes. Typically, if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, the officer may make an arrest without an arrest warrant. There are two exceptions to this general rule.
Yes. A suspect may waive the right to remain silent and choose to speak to police officers. A suspect's silence does not constitute a waiver. Rather, a suspect must indicate explicitly that all Miranda rights have been waived. After the waiver has been given, all statements made by the suspect may be used in evidence against them.