06/23/2026
PSA of the Day (but first a shameless plug)!
The only thing that Albert Einstein and I have in common is that like the big E [=MC2] I too appreciate a healthy imagination; so, when I look at the image below my curiosity begs the question: "Why in the duck why would a pair of Anas Platyrhynchos be in the back seat of a Police Squad Car"?
Likely due to my naturally suspicious nature my first thought is that it's a bogus (photoshopped) photograph, but then again stranger things have happened so maybe it's a genuine picture of two ducks who were rescued from danger (possibly from a roadway) by a good hearted Police Officer or perhaps they're "Gangsta Ducks" who were busted for selling "Quack". I don't presume to know the circumstances and I invite you to come to your own conclusion, but I also see a learning opportunity here, so, with the help of Daisy and Donald, let's incorporate "The Three Cs" (e.g. Cops, Courts and Constitutions) and discuss the importance of NOT talking to Law Enforcement Officers (especially when they're investigating a possible Criminal Offense and have you in their crosshairs), and while we're at it let's bust a Miranda-Myth or two in the process (holy run-on sentences Batman...). Before myth-busting let's get two facts on the record:
- First, it's NOT a myth that if you choose to speak with Police during a "custodial interrogation" or otherwise (e.g. spontaneously or in response to direct questions, such as on the roadside during a Routine Traffic Stop), then "anything that you say can be used against you in a Court of Law". That's both 110% fact and why routinely advises that choosing to (i.e. "Shut-Up and Lawyer-Up" / invoke both The 5th and The 6th / your Right to Remain Silent and Right to Counsel) is almost always the best choice. Yes, you may ("may" - more on that word below) be able to assuage Police suspicion (i.e. talk your way out of it, whatever "it" may be) but it's undeniably true that if you say nothing then there's a 0.0% possibility that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law".
- Second, there's a solid reason why SCOTUS used the word "can" (as opposed to "will" or "shall") in Miranda Warnings, and it's that the United States Supreme Court knew that "can" means "may" (as in "it's possible") which is not the same as "will" or "shall" (both of which presume a foregone conclusion). Aside alert: You may know "The first rule of Fight Club" (i.e. "Don't talk about Fight Club") but with respect to Tyler Durden (both of them, be it Edward Norton or Brad Pitt) the first rule of Criminal Defense Litigation is: "The only thing that's for certain in Criminal Court is that anything "can" - not "will" or "shall" - happen" (ergo why Criminal Defense Lawyers are ethically prohibited from guarantying specific outcomes, but again, I digress). The point is that, similar to Murphy's Law (e.g. "whatever can go wrong will go wrong") regardless of the degree of planning, preparation and professionalism, an incalculable degree of s**t "can" and almost surely "will" happen in Criminal Court. Still, while "unpredictability is predictable", your lawyer's degree of skill and experience should largely correlate with how effective your lawyer is able to cope with and manage such inevitable, albeit unexpected events.
Facts established let's myth bust:
- Myth # 1: It's complete fiction that when a Cop fails to read you Miranda your statements are inadmissible. Officer Friendly need not advise you of Miranda unless and until you are BOTH in custody AND are being interrogated. Where either (or both) of these conditions don't exist (e.g. you're either not "in custody" or you're in custody but you're not being "interrogated") Miranda does NOT apply and you need not be "Mirandized". Further, Miranda doesn't apply to "Spontaneous Statements" / "Excited Utterances", which include those voluntarily made or surreptitiously recorded. For instance, the Police Cruiser below is likely wired for sound and the best reason why two arrested people (or ducks) would be placed together in the vehicle is the hope that they'll speak to one another, an incriminating conversation (be it pre- or post-Miranda) will ensue, be recorded and the statements can (and probably will) be introduced as damning evidence in Court. Aside alert: The same logic applies to telephone conversations made from either a Police Station or a Jail, as they're monitored, recorded and regardless of Miranda are absolutely admissible. Further aside: Miranda has NO application whatsoever to your acts and behavior so even if your statements are suppressed your Arresting Officer's observations remain entirely admissible.
- Myth # 2: It's also complete fiction that where a Cop should've read you Miranda but didn't then your case will be dismissed. If Officer Unfriendly secures a statement from you, even in blatant contravention of Miranda, then "the remedy" is suppression of (i.e. rendering inadmissible) the illegal statement(s) and nothing more. Rendering an ill-gotten statement inadmissible doesn't effect any other aspect of your case, so where any other evidence exists (including statements which weren't subject to exclusion on Miranda grounds) the State is free to go forward and try to prove your guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (sans any suppressed statement). Otherwise stated: Where other incriminating evidence exists (e.g. physical evidence, officer observations, eyewitness ID, scientific or electronic evidence, etcetera), unless your attorney finds another basis to boot that evidence your Criminal Prosecution remains alive, well and all other evidence is presumptively admissible.
So what are the takeaways from this PSA?
- "Don't be a blabber beak";
- When you your odds at a favorable outcome exponentially increase; and
- can't go back in time, prevent your arrest, preclude a Prosecutor from charging you or "erase" any statements that you make (be them spontaneous, in response to questions and while in custody or not) but, once retained, we can and will ensure that any prior mistreatment is addressed, that no further injustice occurs and that the full panoply of rights which are afforded to you by both the Constitution and Law (be it statutory, procedural or otherwise) are respected from that moment forward.
Finally please allow me a shameless plug alert: If you've not yet done so then please join the 2,829 subscribers to 's YouTube Channel / VideoFAQ at www.youtube.com/c/michaelhaberlaw who've contributed to 754,755 views and which presently contains 401 short, informative and hopefully entertaining "Webisodes" including these Miranda-related beauties:
- # 391) What are Miranda Warnings? @ https://youtu.be/hFcosuojZRg
- # 392) When do the Police need to read Miranda Warnings? @ https://youtu.be/s4Rlb1SKfz0
- # 393) What happens if the Cops don’t read me Miranda? @ https://youtu.be/cAFcMHG2Iv8
Should you, a friend, a loved one or even someone that you {don't particularly like but happen to} know be in a jam with the Criminal Justice System then you can rest assured that either retaining or recommending will not only reflect well on you but will provide the client with unwavering, relentless, honest advocacy.
Established in 1991 and with no history whatsoever of any form of professional discipline, is readily available to have open, honest dialogue with potential clients and to quote and honor reasonable fees after identifying a realistic litigation objective. We're proud of our unblemished, time proven record of both having our client's "6:00", 24-7-365, 360° and of providing boutique, creative, effective, unwavering and zealous , , , , , , , , , and and representation to it's clientele, primarily in , on matters ranging from DUI to and from to .
At "it's all about "!
YT: www.youtube.com/c/MichaelHaberLaw
FB: www.facebook.com/Miami.Criminal.Lawyer
X: www.twitter.com/Sharky910
URL: www.criminallaw.miami
E-Mail: [email protected]
Toll Free: 1-888-SHARK-8-1
Cell: 305-798-2220
