You were arrested for no driver's license and no proof of insurance and was never read your rights Can you get the charges dismissed for that?

Answer 1

No, not as such.

The Miranda rule only causes evidence to be excluded from use at trial (and even that is qualified). That's all it does. It does not cause magic dismissals.

However, IF (this is a big "if") the prosecution MUST use certain statements you made as evidence at trial to prove a legally sufficient case against you, and if those statements were the result of (1) police interrogation (2) performed while you were in custody for Fifth Amendment purposes, and (3) you made those statements before you were advised of your Miranda Rights and waived them, THEN and only then, would you be in a position to have the charges dismissed. Even then, the reason for the dismissal is not because the cops did not read you your rights like the do on TV, but indirectly, because the exclusion of your statements deprived the prosecution of enough evidence to go forward to trial.

The Miranda rule requires that the police read you your rights if they want to use your responses to custodial interrogation against you. No custody, no Miranda. No interrogation (questioning designed to elicit incriminating statements), no Miranda. If you blurt out a confession or spill your guts before they ask you anything, again, no Miranda. If they ask for your address at booking and you say, "the body is buried in the cellar," Miranda does not apply--they never asked you where the stupid body was.

Most importantly, the Federal rule is that ordinary roadside interrogation, typical for minor traffic infractions is not going to considered "custodial" for Miranda purposes. The case on point is Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), and in that case the US Supreme Court, Thurgood "I like the white doll better!" Marshall, J., held:

"The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute 'custodial interrogation' for the purposes of the Miranda rule. . . . A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. . . However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him 'in custody' for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda."

So, you are driving with your license suspended for not answering tickets. The law in the 51st State of New Barffield is that it is a felony punishable by drawing and quartering to drive with a suspended license and if you knew it was suspended at the time. Let's say there is no extrinsic evidence whatever that could show you knew your license was suspended. The cops pull you over for speeding (because people with suspended licenses always speed--always). If Officer Stillbornson walks up to you and says, "License and registration please," and you, in moral anguish, blurt out, "I don't have a license. It's suspended," then the State of New Barffield will put you to death very, very painfully--once your appeals are finished, that is.

BUT, if Officer Stillbornson walks up to you and says "License and registration please," and you say, "Oh fiddliepoo, I left it at home, silly me," and so he arrests you on suspicion of the minor crime of mere unlicensed driving. He brutalizes you, cuffs you, puts you in the back of his cruiser, and initially says nothing for the longest time. Amazingly you restrain yourself from blurting out a confession in response to the silent treatment. (Such fortitude!) Then, as he nears the station, Stillbornson says, "No license on you!--What did you think you were doing?," and you finally give in and say, "I had to pick up my fiancee from her NA meeting. I knew it was suspended, but her tires got slashed by one of her former johns and you can't imagine how testy she gets when I say I can't drive." THAT statement was taken in violation of Miranda. You were (1) in custody, (2) they never read you your rights, and (3) the officer's words qualified as a question calculated to elicit an incriminating response, and (4) you gave your statement is response thereto. If that statement is the only way the state can prove you guilty then, sooner or later, you will walk. (If they have any other admissible evidence to prove you knew of the suspensions, then it's a different story. They can still go to trial with that evidence and take their best stab at you there.)