Good info but avoids answering the original question that started this debate. If that is your intention I won’t push, but if it was not your intention I am still curious which right one would assert in a clearly noncustodial situation as justification for not answering questions.
That’s my point. If you have to assert your right, whether to having an attorney or to not answer questions, you’ve crossed the line from non-custodial to custodial interrogation. And in that case, it would fall under Miranda.
Otherwise, just walk away.
2 Likes
OK got it. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Of course in the real world officers will create situations where they try and have it both ways and refuse to accept non-answers but also refuse to admit custody. Using coercion and/or subject’s lack of knowledge of Miranda rights for example. But as you say walking away is the solution. And in some sense that freedom to walk away if not in custody is the right that I was asking about. Cheers.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
