Question About The First 48

Hello all,
I am a recently retired Police Officer here in Maryland. I have investigated just about every crime that came my way in my career. In my last two years of my career, I investigated as a detective, identity theft cases including credit card fraud. The only cases I did not investigate were homicide cases, however I have been directly involved with them. I've testified in several homicide cases in my career. I've been the first officer on the scene of several homicides and have collected evidence, witness statements, suspect statements and have sat in and interrogated suspects in homicide cases, however the reason I could not finish them out is because as a road officer, we just did not have the time for the hundreds of pages of reports and time it takes to investigate a homicide fully. Now, the reason I tell you this is because I want you all to know that I do have a fairly knowledgeable background in police work.

On the subject of when a Miranda Warning needs to be given is as follows:
A Miranda warning is a warning given by United States police agencies to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are interrogated. A custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained (judged by the "free to leave" test), even if he is not under arrest. An elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of his/her "Miranda rights" and either failed to invoke these rights, or made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights after invocation (the term "Miranda rights" is somewhat misleading, as the mandated Miranda warning simply clarifies preexisting Constitutional rights). However, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld state "stop-and-identify" laws, allowing police to require biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.

Now to clarify what the above states. Miranda Warning only needs to be given to a suspect if they are going to be asked INCRIMINATING questions about THE crime they were arrested for, and if they are not free to leave the area (sidewalk, street, their house, police station) freely. Police DO NOT have to "Give you your rights" just because your were arrested. Most people think that when they are arrested for a crime that the police automatically have to "READ YOUR RIGHTS TO YOU". That is NOT true. Matter of fact and law, the police DO NOT even have to tell you what you were charged with. They just have to hand you the charging documents with the written charges on them. That means you have been "notified or served" of what you were charged with. Now some states have different procedures on who has to tell you of your "6st amendment rights to counsel (Lawyer)". Some states say the police have to inform you, some states say the magistrate or commissioner must inform you. Here in Maryland, the commissioner must do that.

With the above in mind, most people get their perception of police work from the media and television shows. The media only shows the general public what THEY WANT TO SHOW YOU. This is why most people get upset with the police. The media and other police shows edit out a lot of material. The First 48 is one of the only TV series that in my opinion is the most realistic process of what the homicide detective goes through. The interrogations are REAL and the detectives are great. These men and women work very hard to solve these cases. The detectives are put in these positions because of special skills and abilities that they posses like, interrogation skills, an "eagle eye" for evidence and just plain intelligence to out wit the criminal element.

Just a little tid bit of information before I go. When a person is arrested for a crime, they DO NOT have a RIGHT to a phone call. A phone call is a privileged. When the constitution was written hundreds of years ago, there were NO PHONES. The ONLY person that police NEED to let you call is an attorney, that is it.
Hoped this helped.

Retired Corporal S. Cooper

The scenes are very real. Keep in mind that a lot of the subjects have been through the sytem once or twice (or ten times) already. A good many of them, if you notice, try to make their role "less" or they think if they claim self-defense, they will get a lighter sentence or let go all together. They know how to play the game (or think they know). I actually sit and watch and find myself yelling at the tv set "lawyer!!!" but alas my friend ... criminals + brains is non existent. And to the credit of so many of these detectives that are shown ... they have a real "knack" at getting to these dirtbags and getting them to admit complicity. Kudos to their abilities. So yes, criminals are THAT stupid (or they wouldn't be criminals to begin with)

--
only humor can keep you sane in an insane world

I'm a huge fan of this show and I'm currently studying criminology in college. I'm an avid fan, and it will always be my favorite show.

However, I have one question. Are the interrogation room scenes real? As a criminology student, and as a citizen of America, we are all entitled to our Miranda Rights (Right to remain silent, whatever you say can be used against you in court, right to an attorney, if you can't afford one, one will be appointed to you). In any interrogation room, the suspect must be read their Miranda rights. Wouldn't any sane individual simply refuse to talk or simply ask for a lawyer. All these kids end up admitting their crimes within minutes of talking to the detectives, and putting themselves in jail by opening their mouths.

I just don't really believe that all these people being interrogated are dumb enough to not request for a lawyer. What do you guys think. I think the show is very real, but I'm not too sure about the interrogation scenes. Any smart American would say "I AINT TALKING TO YOU UNTIL I GET MY LAWYER!" What do you guys think.