Not a waiver of Miranda rule
Jose Ceralde
2 May 2009
Re: Incompetence vs. Miranda rule
Mr. Jess Delfin,
Did the lawyer asl to be transported to the USA? The Miranda rule or the rule I quote
” rights n. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts, or under an agreement (contract). 2) slang for the information which must be given by law enforcement officers to a person who is about to be arrested, is a prime suspect in a crime, or is officially accused of a crime. These “rights” are short for “Miranda rights,” which the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), required be read to alleged criminals, including the rights to remain silent and to have an attorney (and if the suspect cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided), and warning that anything the suspect says can be used against him/her in court. Failure to recite these rights means that a confession may not be used as evidence. (See: Miranda warning)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved “
If I read the above right, Miranda is required prior to arrest of his client, the lawyer’s presence is required in the statement you made. If the lawyer decides to ride in his own car like your observation in the USA he does not waive his client’s “Miranda rights “and the police cannot ignore his rights.
The NAPOLCOM has already suspended 12 PNP so far based on initial findings that SOP for arresting was not followed. Let just watch and see what follows.
