Since that time, police have been required to read suspects their Miranda rights while in custody before they are interrogated.

The Miranda principle has faced many legal challenges, including when police are required to read the rights.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently considered whether or not the police are required to read a person their rights before being questioned curbside.

In this case, the suspect was not read his Miranda rights, before police asked him about his involvement in a crime.

Instead, the police questioned the suspect curbside, after finding him sitting in front of a building.

In this case, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the suspect was not in custody for purposes of the Miranda warning.

Therefore the self-incriminating comments made by the suspect were allowed to be admitted and used against the defendant for purposes of prosecution.

In this article we will cover the following:

• 3 Things You Need to Know about Miranda Rights
• Arizona Supreme Court Case overview
• How a Criminal Defense Attorney can if you’ve been Arrested

This discussion is intended to provide insight into information that is not part of the Miranda reading, but is crucial in helping one to avoid self-incrimination.

3 Things You Need to Know about Miranda Rights

Here are three important things you should know about your Miranda Rights:

1. The police are required to read or say the Miranda rights to a suspect being taken into custody, but before being questioned about involvement in a crime.
2. You have Miranda rights whether they are read or not.
3. Any statements given police anytime before the Miranda warning is read can be used for purposes of prosecution. This includes statements made in seemingly friendly or casual conversation.

1. Police are required to read or say the Miranda rights to you after an arrest and prior to interrogation.

The police must read Miranda warnings to suspects following an arrest or while they are in custody, to inform suspects of important rights they possess. However, the timing of which the police are required to provide them to you does not change the fact that you have them outside of custody and before arrest

2. You have Miranda Rights whether they are read to you or not.

Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, persons have the right remain silent of protection against self-incrimination.

Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, suspects have the right to a criminal defense attorney. This includes having an attorney present during interrogation.

3. Statements you give to police before being Mirandized can be used against you.

Miranda warnings are intended to help you avoid running afoul of your constitutional rights if you are in custody, and the police plan to question you regarding your involvement in a crime.

If you do not invoke your right to an attorney and your right to remain silent, anything you say, even in casual conversation to the police can be used against you in court.

One police tactic used to obtain incriminating information from a suspect is through use of casual conversation.

Police often strike up a casual conversation or appear friendly during questioning.

This informal approach often catches a suspect off guard, leading them to unknowingly provide self-incriminating statements.

Your statements can later be admitted and used against you for criminal prosecution.

The following discussion reveals the crucial impact each of these three factors had on the defendant’s case in a recent Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in this case.

Case Overview

The case arose when a driver saw the defendant sitting on a curb outside an empty building.

The building belonged to a church that was also located on the property.

An observant driver noticed that a board was missing, that had previously been placed over a broken window.

Due to prior break-ins in that building, the driver decided to report it to police.

Officer Huntley was dispatched and parked in the lot next to the building.

After talking to the driver who noticed the exposed broken window, the officer approached the defendant, who was still sitting in front of the building.

The officer noted that the suspect’s possessions were in a shopping cart nearby.

The defendant gave the officer identification upon request and agreed to a pat-down search for weapons.

The officer confirmed that the suspect was not armed, and there were no outstanding warrants for him.

The officer asked the defendant what he was up to, and if he knew anything about the board being removed from the broken window.

The defendant denied any knowledge of the board being removed from the window.

Then the officer asked the defendant to sit in the patrol car because he didn’t know whether anyone else was inside the building.

A second officer arrived on the scene. The defendant then sat on the curb again.

Then a third officer arrived on the scene and helped check the building for unsecured doors.

The pastor of the church arrived and told the first officer he’d be willing to pursue charges if there was a suspect.

The first officer again asked the defendant if he knew anything about the board being removed from the broken window.

The defendant admitted to the officer that he removed the board the day before and had entered to search for money.

The officer then arrested the suspect and escorted him into the police car.

After a search of the building, the officers found no evidence of forced entry, accept for the board being removed from the broken window.

The pastor reported that he found nothing missing.

The officer returned to the police car and advised the defendant of his Miranda rights.

The defendant was read his rights after he had already made the self-incriminating statements that led to his arrest.

For the third time, the officer asked the suspect about his entry into the building. Again the defendant admitted that he removed the board to go inside of the building.

The defendant was charged with burglary.

The defense moved to suppress the defendant’s incriminating statements.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress holding that the defendant was not considered to be in custody when the incriminating statements were made.

The suspect was found guilty of third-degree burglary. His sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation, with the requirement that he serve 30 days in jail as a condition of probation.

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress the incriminating statements made by the defendant.

The defendant then appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court reviewed the question of whether or not the defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda at the time police questioned him.

The defense argued that police must provide Miranda warnings before interrogating someone who is in custody.

The Arizona Supreme Court explained in precedent cases they heard, someone is considered to be in custody if there’s been a formal arrest or a restraint on the suspect’s freedom to move.

The court noted that the limitation of not being free to move is generally associated with being arrested or taken into police custody.

However, the Court explained that the United State States Supreme Court more recently considered this issue.

Citing Howes v. Fields; Berkemer v. McCarty; and Maryland v. Shatzer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not just one factor should be considered.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that when evaluating whether or not a person is in custody subject to Miranda, that multiple factors should be considered, citing U .S. Supreme Court opinions in Howes v. Fields 2012; and Stansbury v. California 2012.

Since then, the Arizona Supreme Court considered these factors when deciding whether or not a person was in custody for purposes of Miranda:

• If the suspect experienced substantial freedom of movement, in a way that would make any reasonable person to feel that they were not free to leave an interrogation; and
• The environment and location of where the questioning takes place, and the presence of objective indicators that an arrest has taken place;
• Length of the interrogation.

With regard to the first factor, the record indicates that after the defendant submitted to a pat down, he was asked to sit in back of the police car.

Later, the officer asked him to get out of the patrol car and again sit on the curb.

The court recognized that the defendant was under constant police supervision from the first time the officer spoke to him. They held that a reasonable person wouldn’t have felt free to leave.

The court then moved to the next factor, regarding the location of the questioning.

It noted that consideration must be given to whether or not the location of questing was familiar rather than one unfamiliar to the suspect.

An example of an unfamiliar location would be in custody at the police station (Miranda v. Arizona).

In Miranda the court held that the unfamiliarity and the change of environment to the police station resulted in a psychological advantage for the police. This environment, in which Miranda was interrogated, played a crucial role in the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision.

To be considered “in custody” for Miranda purposes, the environment of the questioning would need to present circumstances where “inherently coercive pressures” existed.

These circumstances would be such that they would push a defendant into complying with the interrogator’s will.

The court held that being questioned while in public view, serves to diffuse the feelings that the suspect is being threatened with physical force if they do not agree to answer questions.

In this case study, the defendant answered the questions on the street in public, in the familiar surroundings. The officer questioned him casually where he had been sitting on the curb when the officer arrived on the scene.

The third factor the court considered in this case was length of time. The Court noted that the total time that elapsed was an hour, from the officer’s arrival on scene until the arrest.

The Court cited precedent cases where questioning occurred, held that 1 hour to 1 ½ hours did not constitute being “in custody’ ’ for Miranda purposes.

Additionally, the Court reasoned that it matters whether there was an unreasonable delay by the police during the investigation in order to get an advantage over the suspect and increase the likelihood he would incriminate himself.

In this case, the defendant was not interrogated in isolation from others and was visible to passersby.

The investigation was a little bit longer, but this was appropriate in the context of an investigation of a possible burglary.

The officers acted efficiently and without exaggerated displays of authority in conducting the investigation.

The defendant was only asked a few questions, and his property was not seized.

The Court concluded that the curbside questioning was not conducted while the defendant was in custody, and the questioning was not coercive enough to require Miranda warnings.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the motion to suppress and affirmed the conviction.

How a Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help if You’ve Been Arrested for Burglary in Mesa AZ

In Arizona a person may be guilty of burglary if they intended to carry out burglary even if they did not take anything as in this case under A.R.S. 13-1506, and A.R.S. 13-1507.

Penalties for burglary convictions in Arizona are severe. All burglary charges in Arizona are categorized as felonies, which expose a person to prison terms if convicted.

Mere possession of burglary tools call for prison sentencing from for up to 2 years in prison.

Third degree burglary charges sentencing include a maximum of 3.75 years in prison.

Burglary charges in the second degree call for prison terms of 8.75 years.

First degree burglary charges expose a person to a maximum of 21 years prison.

James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak, exclusively defends criminal charges.

He is former prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney. James Novak provides a strong defense for those who have been accused of criminal charges.

If retained, James Novak will evaluate your case determine the best strategy for your defense.

James Novak, works hard for his clients, and will pursue the most favorable outcome possible in in your case.

Criminal Defense Attorney, James Novak, offers a free initial consultation to those who face active criminal charges in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona.

If you are charged with burglary or another felony offense, you can contact or call the Law Office of James Novak at (480) 413-1499, and speak with James Novak for your free and confidential initial consultation.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 13-1508 (Burglary in the First Degree)
• A.R.S. 13-1507 (Burglary in the Second Degree)
• A.R.S. 13-1506 (Burglary in the Third Degree)
• Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona
• Miranda v. Arizona
• Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Arizona Criminal Code Sentencing Chart 2016-2017

Other Articles of Interest from our Award Winning Blog:

• Mistake of Law: How to Challenge an Unlawful Stop
• Marijuana Odor Probable Cause for Search Warrant
• One of the Most Important Reasons to Resolve Your Warrant
• Entrapment: The most important requirement for Your Defense
• Your Right to Request Change of Judge in Arizona Criminal Court

The police and prosecution take domestic violence very serious. They egregiously pursue convictions in these cases because they are considered to be a crime against a victim. Domestic violence refers to a familial relationship. The victim may be a spouse, partner, brother, sister, grandparent, child, or other persons residing together.

Police have the burden on the scene to distinguish the aggressor from the victim. Often the victim is cited or arrested when the police are unable to identify which party was the aggressor at the scene. It can also occur when false accusations are made against a victim by the aggressor.

Police Departments keep logs of incidents where the police have been called to a residence before. In many of these cases, an arrest will be made, or both parties will be cited, or arrested and forced to defend their charge in court. Arizona Domestic Violence Laws

Domestic Violence (DV) crimes are described under Arizona Law ARS § 13-3601. This law applies to specified domestic persons who become victims of assault, homicide, threat, intimidation, neglect, abuse or other act of violence.

Offenses may be classified as felonies or misdemeanors, and penalties vary depend on circumstances involved. They include: aggravated or mitigated factors; age of the victim; nature and severity of injuries; if a weapon was used; and whether or not the crime was dangerous or non-dangerous; and if the crime was a first time or repeat offense.

Penalties for Non-Dangerous Domestic Violence Offenses Non-dangerous Misdemeanor DV charges call for minimums of 30 days to 6 months in jail; and fines from $500.00 to $2500.00.

Non-dangerous Felony DV charges call for 6 months to 18 months in prison, minimums; and 4 to 10 years maximum ranges.

Persons convicted of non-dangerous domestic violence offenses may be ordered to participate in domestic violence offender or anger management counseling programs.

Penalties for Dangerous Domestic Violence Offenses

Dangerous Felony first time offenses expose a person to a minimum of 18 months to 3 years in prison; and maximum penalties of 7 years to 21 years on prison. Felony domestic violence offenders will be exposed to court ordered fines that can reach a maximum of $150,000, plus restitution.

Persons convicted of domestic violence offenses will be ordered to participate in domestic violence offender or anger management counseling programs. Additional Court ordered penalties may apply such as community service, or probation.

Criminal Defense Attorney for Domestic Violence Crimes Mesa, AZ

If you have been charged with any domestic violence offenses you should consult a criminal defense attorney before pleading guilty. There may be defenses that can be used to challenge the charges, lead to suppression of evidence, or even a dismissal of charges. It is never a good idea to go to court without qualified legal representation for any criminal offense. If retained, an attorney will protect your rights, defend your charges. If the case can’t be dismissed, they will work to mitigate sentencing to help you avoid or reduce harsh jail or prison sentencing.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence .

• City of Mesa Police – Family Violence Unit can also provide assistance

• Arizona Court – Domestic Violence Information and Resources

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Phoenix,Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, AZ Free Consultation! Call (480) 413-1499

Mesa AZ Burglary Charges
Burglary charges are considered to be victim crimes. Any crime against a victim is considered to be a serious offense. If you were arrested on burglary charges in Mesa AZ, you should consult a criminal lawyer who is experienced at defending Mesa burglary charges as soon as possible. There are different levels of burglary charges in Arizona, and all of them are categorized as felonies. Any felony conviction exposes you to potential prison sentencing along with other harsh penalties.

Arizona Burglary Laws Arizona Law describes burglary under A.R.S. Chapter 15 13-1501 “CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND BURGLARY”. The different levels vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the offense. In general the law describes burglary as the act of entering property unlawfully.

Below are some Arizona Burglary Law facts:

• A person can be arrested or convicted of burglary if they “intended” to steal something, even if they did not take anything.

• Burglary to a residential property is more serious, than burglary to commercial property.

• A person or an accomplice must possess “knowledge” that the person committing the burglary is used or possessed a firearm, explosive, or other deadly weapon in order to be convicted of “First Degree Burglary” (the most serious);

• It is not necessary for the building or area to have been locked to be convicted;

• It is not necessary for a person to be in the building during the burglary, in order to be convicted;

• Burglary is often coupled with other criminal charges such as Criminal Trespassing or other charges that often occur simultaneously with a burglary;

• All burglaries are charged as felonies and expose the defendant to prison sentencing.

Arizona Burglary Classifications:
Burglary charges classifications are outlined under A.R.S. Chapter 15 “CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND BURGLARY” 13-1505, 13-1506, 13-1507, and 13-1508. Here are the main classifications of burglary under Arizona Law:

• A.R.S. 13-1505: Possession of Burglary tools; (Class 6 Felony);

• A.R.S. 13-1506: Third Degree Burglary (Class 4 Felony);

• A.RS. 13-1507: Second Degree Burglary (Class 3 Felony);

• A.R.S. 13-1508: First Degree Burglary;

(Class 3 -commercial / Class 2- residential) Burglary classifications range from Class 6 Felonies (least severe) to Class 2 Felonies (most serious). The only classification more serious than Class 2 First Degree Burglary is a Class 1 felony. Class 1 felonies are reserved for the most serious crimes of homicide or the taking of another person’s life.

Arizona Burglary Sentencing Guidelines
Arizona Burglary Sentencing falls under A.R.S. Chapter 7 “SENTENCING AND IMPRISONMENT” 13-701 to 13-706 which applies to burglary sentencing. All Felony Classification have sentencing ranges of minimums to maximums with regard to the length of prison terms. Sentencing Guidelines the court considers when determining the sentencing depends of many factors. Below are some considerations:

1) The presence of mitigating verses aggravating factors;

2) Repeat offense verses first time offense;

3) Criminal record;

4) Existence of violence or harm to victim (s);

5) Extent of harm to victim (s);

6) Involvement or possession of a gun, or other deadly weapon in the burglary;

7) Nature and value of property stolen;

8) Extent of damage to the vehicle, building or other property resulting from the burglary;

9) Other criminal offenses committed with the burglary (such as trespassing, or assault).

Criminal Defense Lawyer for Burglary Mesa AZ
Particularly with serious crimes it is easy to forget that every defendant is innocent until proven guilty. By law the accused has a right to defend their Mesa AZ charges. But keep in mind that it is unwise to try to defend such serious charges without representation by a qualified criminal defense attorney. A conviction for charges as serious as burglary will change your life forever and detriment every aspect of it, beginning with your future and freedom. This is why Mesa criminal lawyers will advise you to hire an experienced criminal attorney to defend your Mesa AZ burglary charges. A good criminal defense lawyer will defend you; protect your rights; assure you will be treated fairly; and fight to get your Mesa AZ burglary charges dropped, or if that is not possible, will alternatively attempt to get charges and sentencing reduced so that they have the least impact as possible on your life.

If you “Like” this article please let us know! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!
Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499

www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com

www.novakazlaw.com

www.arizonacriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com

www.phoenixduilawyerblog.com

Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix AZ Free Consultation! Call (480) 413-1499

If you have been arrested; face active Arizona criminal or DUI charges, or have an existing warrant for your arrest in Maricopa County for Arizona DUI, DWI, drunk driving, drug or any other criminal charges contact the Law Office of James Novak, for your Free Consultation at (480) 413-1499. James Novak, experienced Arizona criminal Defense and DUI & Criminal defense Attorney, James Novak will speak with you directory concerning your charges, and provide you with defense options. James Novak is an experienced trial lawyer and former prosecutor.

The Law Office of James Novak is devoted 100% to defending DUI, Drug & criminal charges in valley wide within Maricopa County including Maricopa County Defense AZ, Scottsdale AZ, Tempe AZ, Phoenix AZ, Chandler AZ, Maricopa County Defense AZ, East Valley, and surrounding cities within the Phoenix metro and Maricopa County Area.

Phoenix Arizona Burglary Laws Arizona Law outlines burglary laws under A.R.S. Chapter 15 13-1501 “CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND BURGLARY”. The differences in classifications depend on the circumstances surrounding the offense and how serious it was. While each category is different, they all share a common description: Burglary described as the act of entering or remaining in or on a property belonging to another with the intent to commit theft or burglary.

Here are some other interesting aspects of Arizona laws relating to burglary.

• The way the Arizona burglary law is written, a person may be arrested for burglary or convicted of burglary if they simply “intended” to steal something, but in fact did not take anything.

• Burglarizing a residence is considered more serious an offense than burglarizing commercial property for purposes of sentencing.

• With regard to Burglary in the first degree, a person or their accomplice must have “knowledge” that they or the person committing the burglary is using or in possession of a gun, explosive, or other deadly weapon in order to be convicted of burglary in the first degree.

• To be charged and convicted of burglary, it is not necessary for the building or area to be locked.

• To be charged and convicted of burglary, it is not necessary for anyone to be home or in the building during the burglary.

• Burglary charges are often coupled with other charges such as Criminal Trespassing for purposes of sentencing. • All burglaries are charged as felonies that will expose you to prison sentencing.

Burglary Classifications in Arizona

Burglary charges in Arizona are classified under A.R.S. Chapter 15 “CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND BURGLARY” 13-1505, 13-1506, 13-1507, and 13-1508. Below are four of the most common burglary charges:

• A.R.S. 13-1505: Burglary tools and illegal auto master key possession; (Class 6 Felony);

• A.R.S. 13-1506: Burglary in the Third Degree; (Class 4 Felony);

• A.RS. 13-1507: Second Degree Burglary; (Class 3 Felony);

• A.R.S. 13-1508: First Degree Burglary; (Class 3/commercial & Class 2/residential)

The classifications range from a Class 6 Felony which is least severe to a Class 2 Felony which is the most severe. To put the levels into perspective, the only classification more serious than Burglary in the First Degree is a Class 1 felony and homicide is a Class 1 felony.

Arizona Burglary Sentencing Guidelines

Arizona Burglary Sentencing Guidelines can be found under A.R.S. Chapter 7 “SENTENCING AND IMPRISONMENT” 13-701 to 13-706. Since all burglary charges are categorized as felonies the sentencing guidelines for felonies apply to convictions.

Each Felony Classification has a minimum and maximum sentencing range for prison terms. Whether or not a sentence will fall closer to a minimum or maximum range depends on several factors. Below are some examples:

1) The existence of “mitigating factors” or “aggravating factors”;

2) Whether or not it was a repeat offense or first time offense;

3) Prior criminal history;

4) Whether or not, and how serious, a victim was harmed;

5) Whether or not a firearm or other deadly weapon was used during the burglary;

6) Value of the property stolen in the burglary;

7) Extent of damage to the property due to unlawful forced entry.

Criminal Defense Lawyer for Burglary Charges in Phoenix AZ

No matter how serious the criminal charges, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to defend the charges against them. Burglary is too serious an offense to combat alone. This is why top Phoenix criminal attorneys will advise you not to plead guilty before consulting an experienced criminal lawyer in Phoenix AZ who defends burglary charges. A good criminal Lawyers will defend your rights; make sure you are treated fairly; and fight to get your Phoenix burglary charges dismissed. If every avenue has been exhausted, and it is impossible to get the charges dismissed, they will challenge the prosecution’s case for weaknesses in evidence, mitigating factors, and other defense strategies to get your charges and penalties reduced in order to get the best possible outcome in your case.

If you “Like” this article please let us know! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com www.arizonacriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com www.phoenixduilawyerblog.com

Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix AZ Free Consultation! Call (480) 413-1499