Did my Miranda rights get violated and can I have the only evidence and charges thrown out as a result?

You made a lot of bad decisions here. First, you shoplifted which can give you a criminal record for life over a few dollars worth of merchandise. Second, they had a right to stop you and by resisting you could have been charged with a felony Robbery. Third, you not only let the police in your home and agreed to talk to them, you confessed and gave them the stolen property. You will get an ACD dismissal with a good lawyer in most jurisdictions for a first offense, but if you get arrested again the prosecutor will not reduce or dismiss the charge and you will find it very hard to get a decent job for the rest of your life, and that will not be removed since New York does not allow impingement. I am sure that you will make better decisions in the future and now realize that it was not only wrong, but that it was something that could hurt your chances of success in the future.

Your Miranda rights do not have to be read to you. Reading them is the exception, it is rarely done. You might be able to make a motion to suppress, but one must read exactly what the police report says in order to determine whether such a motion is viable. You handed over the stuff you stole. That is the evidence against you, and you did so without Miranda rights being read to you. If you continue to think that you can beat the system on charges like this, you will eventually end up in prison. After a second petit theft conviction, subsequent thefts are felonies. Third degree felonies carry a potential 5 years in prison, and people can go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread. Number One, stop stealing. Number two, hire an attorney, do not rely on a free one from the government that is trying to lock you up.

No violation. You were a complete fool to have copped out and handed over the merchandise. Miranda only applies "after" someone is cuffed. You were never cuffed prior to opening your mouth, and you handed over the stuff voluntarily. Miranda won't save you here my friend, you need a good lawyer.

The Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision states that the person in custody must, prior to interrogation , be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent , and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court ; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent , an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.? One of the questions that arise in a Miranda motion is ?was the Defendant in custody at the time of the questioning?? The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody . This limitation follows from the fact that Miranda's purpose is to protect suspects from the compulsion inherent in the police dominated atmosphere attendant to arrest. Custody means either that the suspect was under arrest or that his freedom of movement was restrained to an extent "associated with a formal arrest." A formal arrest occurs when an officer, with the intent to make an arrest, takes a person into custody by the use of physical force or the person submits to the control of an officer who has indicated his intention to arrest the person. The defense tries to show that Custody happens when the defendant feels that he cannot leave. Thus, by this standard a person is in custody when the officer has his driver?s license. This also occurs when a reasonable person in a like situation would feel that he was not free to leave. If a violation of Miranda is found the result is that all statements made during the violation of Miranda and all evidence obtained as a result of the statements are excluded from the prosecution?s case in chief.

From what you say, I think you are going to have a difficult time. You were also wrong when you said that the store employee did not have the right to stop you. In any event, sounds like you don't deny stealing. Maybe you should stop stealing or simply be willing to accept the consequences for you actions.... good or bad.

No Miranda only comes into play AFTER they arrest you and they THEN want to question you. What they did was legal. You should get a lawyer. If you never had a prior theft offense then maybe the attorney can get a deal where you end up with no record. This is huge.? A conviction stays on your record FOREVER.? What employer wants to hire a thief

Miranda rights apply to statements. You didn't make any statements, you simply handed over the goods. Your attorney could argue that handing over the goods was a tacit admission and, therefore, within the scope of Miranda. But, I think it's very unlikely a judge would accept the argument. Even if he did, there's no guarantee that he would dismiss the case. It would depend on what other evidence the prosecution has.

You were not in custody when at your parent's house so Miranda doesn't apply. But confessions can be suppressed if involuntary. It depends upon the nature of the intimidation.

An officer must read you your rights when you are arrested. If he does not, it is possible to get statements thrown out of court. However, other types of evidence can be used by the prosecution. The fact that you handed over stolen merchandise is not a statement. The merchandise is physical evidence.