If I am deaf, at a DUI check point I told officers about a very small amount of pot in the car, shouldn't they have read me my rights?

Miranda rights are required if: 1. You are in custody. 2. You are questioned about the circumstances of the offense while you are in custody.

They do not have to read Miranda rights unless after you are arrested, then they want to interrogate you bout something that could incriminate you.

If the officer doesn't read your Miranda rights, and then questions you while you are in custody, any evidence after that is inadmissible. The evidence he took before that is admissible.

Miranda only has to be read if there is post-arrest interrogation. Most cops are trained to get everything they need out of your mouth "prior" to cuffing you, so Miranda rarely applies.

Although an officer should read you your Miranda rights when you are arrested, it is not absolutely necessary as long as you are not questioned about the crime for which you were arrested or were detained during the questioning. Miranda only acts to suppress any statements you gave the police after you are arrested or detained. It does not invalidate an arrest.

The police don't have to read you your rights before arresting you or searching your vehicle. They only have to read the Miranda rights if they want to question you while in police custody and use your testimony against you in court.

Usually, when a person states, I was not read my rights! they are referring to their Miranda Warnings/Rights. Miranda Warnings protect people from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves.[1] The Miranda Warnings/Rights are: (1) You have the right to remain silent; (2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court; (3) You have the right to consult with an attorney and have an attorney present during questioning; and (4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you before questioning at no cost to you. [2] However, many people misunderstand when a peace officer is required to give them Miranda Warnings. A suspect is only accorded Miranda protections during a custodial interrogation. Both elements (i.e., custody and interrogation) must be present before the peace officer is required to give Miranda Warnings. That means peace officers are not required to give Miranda Warnings when they are still in the investigatory stage. For instance, a peace officer is not required to give Miranda Warnings when he asks a person suspected of driving under the influence if they have been drinking or asks them to conduct field sobriety tests. This is because the peace officer is still trying to ascertain whether a crime has been committed (i.e., The Investigatory Stage). That said, in Utah, a person is in custody when an individual?s freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. The inquiry is objective, and a person may understand himself to be in custody based either on physical evidence or on the nature of the peace officer's instructions and questions. Utah Courts have set out a five-factor test to determine when a person is in custody for the purpose of Miranda protections. They are: (1) the site of the interrogation; (2) whether the investigation focused on the accused; (3) whether the objective indicia of arrest were present; (4) the length and form of the interrogation; and (5) whether the accused came to the place of interrogation freely and willingly. In Utah, after it has been determined that the accused was in custody, the court must decide whether the accused incriminating statement was the product of interrogation. Interrogation is either express questioning by the peace officers or its functional equivalent. And, it incorporates any words or actions on the part of the peace officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.