Question about the 5th amendment

[emperor124]

About 12 years ago my cousin was hanging out with a bunch of his friends in this half finished house that his father was building. They were playing some pretty loud music and wound up getting the cops called on them. My cousin and one of his friends each had one beer from a 6 pack. By the time they dragged everyone to the police station my cousin and his friend both tested negative for alcohol. One of the cops then said something to the effect of "We can't arrest any of you for possession of alcohol because you all tested negative, but just out of curiosity, who all had a beer?" My cousin and his friend admitted to it and they went ahead and arrested them anyway! He was later convicted of a Minor in Possession. My question to you is this: Does this violate the 5th amendment clause against self incrimination? It seems like it would.

[AngryAmish]

1. No

Police do not have to tell the truth. They were not compelled to confess or testify (5th Amend. violation). They did confess by admitting to the beer. Never talk to the police. Ever.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. There's a landmark case

Regarding self-incrimination. A little girl had been missing, everyone assumed she was dead, and the police arrested a likely suspect. But, he didn't confess, and, ultimately, they were going to have to let him go, since they had no direct evidence against him.

In the police car, as they were transferring him from one facility to another, maybe to the courthouse, a police officer said to the detainee, "At the very least, let her parents give her a Christian burial. Tell us where you hid her body."

And the guy did.

This one went all the way up to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was thrown out because it was an illegal interrogation without counsel present.

Brewer v. Williams, as I recall.

[AngryAmish]

8. I think that only applies when counsel is obtained

Again we don't have all the facts but assumming there was no need to Mirandize (petty offense) then Brewer would not apply. But I don't know what state, necessity of Miranda, etc. so I may well be wrong. But in Illinois, the police conduct was kosher (knowing the little I do know).

[DefenseLawyer]

9. I know of no Miranda exception for petty offenses

There is no requirement for Miranda when questioning a person about an infraction, such as "Do you know how fast you were going?" but if the person is in custody Miranda would be required before asking a question in which the answer would tend to incriminate the person of an arrestable offense. Miranda would only become unnecessary if the person was no longer in custody, as the question is clearly incriminatory. If they are still at the police station, even after being "cleared" that is still a pretty close call. Brewer involved a man that was with out question in custody and had already invoked his right to remain silent and had an attorney. The question was whether the officers transporting him "tricked" him into confessing by talking about the case without directly questioning him. Except for the "trick" element, it isn't very similar, given the limited facts we have.

[Madame_Karnak]

13. A Little Knowledge Is A Powerful Thing

Some friends and I have had many experiences with the law
enforcement types due to our politics.  What we have found is
that most police officers are counting on you not knowing what
the actual rules are.  We decided to form something like
Triple A for civil liberties. It would be a membership
organization that teaches you how to respond and ensures that
informed members show up to document your experience.  The
organization's name is: CopperCards. 

The best time to get good advice is at the moment when you can
apply it.  That is what CopperCards does.  It gives you the
advice and one number to call to alert a group of people to
your situation.  The police are only brave if they feel that
you are an isolated individual without resources.  Not all
police are rule-benders either, just those with those
tendencies to begin with. 

Madame_Karnak

[midnight]

14. Do you have a phone no. for that organization-coppercards.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. How old was your cousin?

Was he arrested?

If so, was he read his Miranda rights?

[emperor124]

10. He was 19 at the time I believe

And no they weren't officially arrested, they were just dragged down to the station.

[MercutioATC]

3. Nope. The police are permited to lie to solicit statements.

We may have an "innocent until proven guilty" system, but it's also "know the law or get screwed"...

[zonmoy]

15. Surprised that if they are able to lie to get statements

they aren't able to lie for any other reason.

[KSinTX]

4. I'd say no

Your cousin had the right against self-incrimination by saying "Prove who had beers." By answering, he waived that right, as I understand it. Kids relate very differently to authority figures and that's why usually a parent needs to be around. I take it these kids were older than 16 but younger than 21.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. It would depend on whether they were still in custody at the time of the statement

Miranda requires that before questioning a person in custody, that person must be advised of his or her write to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc. However, Miranda only applies to persons in custody, that is under arrest, or detained in a situation where a reasonable person would not feel he was free to leave. If they had just been told they were not under arrest and were free to leave, the state could argue that they were not in custody and therefore the officer did not have to read them their miranda warnings before asking the incriminating question. Of course, it is also possible that the officers had already read them their miranda warnings when they first took them to the station, in which case it wouldn't be a violation in any case. (It would still be dirty, and certainly not in the spirit of Miranda, and I can see some judges that would frown upon it, but others that are prosecuting from the bench would probably encourage it).
If your cousin was not just a minor, but also a juvenile, that adds another wrinkle, as generally the police can not question a juvenile without an express waiver from a parent. At this point, 12 years later, there probably isn't much recourse in any case, but that is just my opinion.

[Piewhacket]

17. Yo dat..

Good. DefenseLawyer knows this stuff. Ordinary defense lawyer not necessarily remember this
stuff from law school but criminal defense lawyer supposed to really know this stuff.
Therefore DefenseLawyer is probably real deal criminal defense lawyer. Good to see you on DU.

Analysis accepted but forgive me if I conclude a violation, as matters were
stated (analysis omitted). Know I shouldn't to do that, but I'm in a lynching
mood due to actions of unitary executive and their scummy lawless associates.

Anyway... statute of limitation on a civil rights action is generally one year, I believe.
Still, given the person was tried for the offense, would it have been appropriate
for him (or his counsel) to raise an objection to admission of the confession at trial?
If so/not, and he was thereafter convicted, what grounds (if any) for appeal?

That analysis could help the original poster understand what happened to their child and why.
People sometimes don't really understand how the system works (they usually know how it
sucks), or what important role criminal defense lawyers have in the system of protecting
civil liberties. Here especially the right to remain silent, right of representation by a lawyer,
and a right of appeal may have been important. Thankfully it wasn't a death penalty case,
but I don't doubt a death penalty case with similar facts is easily found.

[Warpy]

7. They could have and should have refused to answer.

Never volunteer anything to the police. Wait until a lawyer is present.

[Popol Vuh]

11. No

As the others have mentioned the police can lie to illicit you for information in their investigation. However, in this case since the police didn't witness a crime and the answer was given before Miranda was cited to him, the police will need corroborating evidence to secure a guilty decision.

If while in court the young man was to say he was upset and was just being smart with the police. Without corroborating evidence showing he was indeed under the influence. I cannot see he a guilty could be secured.

Here's a good video from the ACLU on how to protect your rights if confronted by the police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA Pay attention to the word games police are trained to use. They are trained to exploit your natural desire to be considered a good person instead of a uncooperative one.

[readyforreason]

12. shame

Shame they got punished for telling the truth.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Never talk to the police under any circumstances.

Best youtube videos I've ever watched.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE