Must a Social Worker Advise an Incarcerated Def of His Rights Under Miranda?

[pragmatic]

Social Workers are not law enforcement personel and have no law enforcement powers. You get read your rights by a Police Officer before he interrogates you or has decided to arrest you.

Social Workers should not be making decisions as to whether or not a person should be referred to the police. The way it works is a social worker is informed of a possible underage rape or child abuse, she immediately should turn that over to the police. They have no place in the decision making for an arrest.

Yeah. Am going with that. The suggestion that a social worker should have to advise miranda rights is silly.

Not unlike there are selective things which a psychologist/therapist is obligated to report to police if they are told by a patient.

Suppose the lawyer for the defendant can claim hearsay evidence at the trial. And the prosecutor would certainly need more than just the statements from the social worker to successfully convict.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yeah. Am going with that. The suggestion that a social worker should have to advise miranda rights is silly.

Not unlike there are selective things which a psychologist/therapist is obligated to report to police if they are told by a patient.

Suppose the lawyer for the defendant can claim hearsay evidence at the trial. And the prosecutor would certainly need more than just the statements from the social worker to successfully convict.

All other points aside, the question about the social worker is valid because they work for the state. Police or not, as an agent of the state and with a legal requirement that they reveal everything they learn from the accused (i.e. no patient confidentiality) then the Miranda question becomes valid.

[Cletus]

The whole "Miranda" issue is ridiculous. There should be no requirement to Mirandize anyone upon arrest or before interrogation.

[Max Rockatansky]

The whole "Miranda" issue is ridiculous. There should be no requirement to Mirandize anyone upon arrest or before interrogation.

Great. Do you work for the Parkland PD or Broward Sheriff's Department? It would explain a lot.

[MisterVeritis]

All other points aside, the question about the social worker is valid because they work for the state. Police or not, as an agent of the state and with a legal requirement that they reveal everything they learn from the accused (i.e. no patient confidentiality) then the Miranda question becomes valid.

When I go to the DMV should they read me my rights? After all, they work for the state.

[Cletus]

Great. Do you work for the Parkland PD or Broward Sheriff's Department? It would explain a lot.

Did you suffer from oxygen deprivation as a fetus? It would explain a lot.

You posted your stupid response without even knowing why. It was a conditioned response, like one of Pavlov's dogs.

Now, I invite you to actually think about what I said and your idiotic response to it and see if you can come up with something better. Explain WHY an arresting or interrogating officer who is trying to solve a crime should be required to tell his suspect that it is okay if he doesn't answer his questions. I am in no way suggesting anyone be stripped of their 5th Amendment protections. I am suggesting however that it should not be the responsibility of the police to educate someone about what rights they have.

Now, take a deep breath, pull your head out of your ass and THINK. You might actually like it.

[pragmatic]

All other points aside, the question about the social worker is valid because they work for the state. Police or not, as an agent of the state and with a legal requirement that they reveal everything they learn from the accused (i.e. no patient confidentiality) then the Miranda question becomes valid.

Valid counterpoint.

Reminder that for most/all issues there are multiple sides to the story.

[Max Rockatansky]

Did you suffer from oxygen deprivation as a fetus? It would explain a lot.

You posted your stupid response without even knowing why. It was a conditioned response, like one of Pavlov's dogs.

Now, I invite you to actually think about what I said and your idiotic response to it and see if you can come up with something better. Explain WHY an arresting or interrogating officer who is trying to solve a crime should be required to tell his suspect that it is okay if he doesn't answer his questions. I am in no way suggesting anyone be stripped of their 5th Amendment protections. I am suggesting however that it should not be the responsibility of the police to educate someone about what rights they have.

Now, take a deep breath, pull your head out of your ass and THINK. You might actually like it.

Translation: How dare you question me! $#@! you!

No worries. When you come off the ceiling and cool down, perhaps we can discuss this logically without all of your theatrics.

[stjames1_53]

Agreed. I'm guessing this idiot decided not to ask for one. If he did, and one wasn't provided, he walks on anything said.

I'd rather have the FBI and NSA crawling all over my ass than one pissed of social worker from CPS.
A false accusation put them every where in my life. It cost me $2500 to protect myself from a non-charge with no evidence. Every time I went to their kangaroo court, I had my attorney.
That pissed them off, but after two visits, them tossed both of us out of the building. But because I wouldn't answer their questions without an attorney, they marked me down as a child abuser. Now I cannot foster.
A false accusation ruined my reputation because I wouldn't admit to something that never happened.
The point being that this organization can ruin a family without LEO ever getting involved
Ask most attorneys. CPS can ruin lives without due process and can cost a lot of money defending yourself against accusations from CPS
If this guy talked to a social case worker without a lawyer, he's sc-a-a-a-a-rewed.

[DGUtley]

When I go to the DMV should they read me my rights? After all, they work for the state.

You aren't in custody at that time.