This is the second installment of our two-part blog post on common myths involving criminal defense in Kansas. At our Kansas criminal defense law firm, we recognize that many times people compromise their case because they act on erroneous information and urban legends. We have tried to dispel some of these misconceptions in the hope that it will discourage some from inadvertently making their situation worse. We also invite you to review part-one of this blog post.
The police did not read me my Miranda rights so anything I told them must be excluded.
This is a misconception perpetrated by television and movies that often gets criminal defendants in hot water. Many defendants volunteer potentially incriminating or contradictory information because they presume that the information is safe since no Miranda warning has been provided. However, the Miranda warning is only required once a defendant is “in custody.” While this generally will refer to when you are actually arrested, there is a substantial amount of litigation over whether a defendant was “in custody” at the time damaging admissions were made to the police. The best policy is not to answer any questions or provide information about the case to anyone until you are represented by counsel.
I am required to submit to field sobriety tests and a roadside breath test unless I want to lose my driver’s license.
This misconception is based on a failure to distinguish roadside testing with a formal BAC test following a lawful arrest. While the Kansas Implied Consent Law does require that you submit to formal breath testing at the police station or other approved facility, there are no negative consequences imposed by law for refusing both field sobriety tests (FSTs) and a roadside breath testing. While you may still be arrested if you refuse these tests, there is little to gain by performing the tests. The evidence obtained will be used as a basis to establish probable cause for your arrest, as well as evidence of guilt in your DUI case so you can and should refuse to submit to such testing.
The conduct of the police constituted entrapment.
Many people do not understand the type of conduct referenced by the term “entrapment.” This term essentially refers to the police engaging in conduct that induces someone to commit an act they otherwise would not be inclined to engage in. The fact that police officers provide you an opportunity to violate the law, such as solicitation of a prostitute or purchasing drugs does not alone constitute entrapment.
Kansas DUI defense attorney Stacey Schlimmer diligently defends the Constitutional rights and freedom of her clients. While we have tried to dispel some of the common misconceptions about Kansas criminal cases, the best way to obtain more specific information is to schedule a free consultation with Kansas criminal defense attorney Stacey Schlimmer. Our Kansas criminal defense law firm offers a confidential free consultation so call us today at 913-219-5424 or contact us online.