Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 15
th, 2007 at 3:20pm:
Sergeant,
Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.
Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!
Regards,
MM
I have already expressed the idea contained in the highlighted text above. You are exhibiting classic troll behavior.
The text of Miranda v. Arizona uses the terms "questioning" and "interrogation" synonymously.
Quote:To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
In Rhode Island v. Innis, the court defined "interrogation" as as "express questioning or its functional equivalent." The court went on to write that the functional equivalent of interrogation consists of "words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."
You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights. You could also ignore the Edwards Rule and polygraph a suspect in custody after he states he wants to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions. In reality, you can do neither.