Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
This confuses me. i do think, however, you are missing my point. I am saying any suspect should have the right to be advised by an attornet to talk if they so choose, but not talk if they so choose...and KNOW they have the right not to talk.
|
As mentioned in my last post, quoting the Wiki on Miranda Rights, they can talk to a lawyer and have the ability to do so, but he doesn't need to be physically present.
Quote:
|
you cant refeuse a breathalyzer now under the guise of waiting for an attorney. This isnt an argument at all.
|
As I understand it, this is partially, if not completely because you don't need a lawyer present to for the police to collect evidence, which is what you are arguing against. If I am wrong, and it is based on another precedent entirely then I withdraw that argument.
Quote:
|
Suspect is in custody I assume? So yes, the suspect would likely love to wait a couple days to know what they can and cannot do.
|
The suspect can talk to a lawyer to find that out. Even if it is not their lawyer.
Quote:
|
What? Justice is not dispensed in an interrogation room..that all happens in a court room. No idea what you mean here.
|
The justice process is the entire process from when the crime is reported until a convicted person completes his sentence. It is delayed if the investigation is delayed. You can't have a trial (or in most cases be charged) until the investigation is complete. You have, and so you should, the right to not be held without trial.