If Miranda rights weren't read before the confession of being high can they conflict you legally?

The police can ask questions while conducting an investigation before making a decision to arrest. Any statements made post arrest in response to custodial interrogations may be suppressed. Hire a good lawyer.

Miranda does not apply until he is in custody or in a custodial interrogation. If the police ask if he has been drinking and he admits to being high then it's his fault if he is arrested.

Not necessarily. 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. If your friend made what is called a "spontaneous statement", his "confession" could be used against him. I strongly suggest that your friend contact an experienced criminal defense attorney for a face-to-face consultation and give him/her all of the facts surrounding his arrest. He/she would then be in a better position to analyze his case and advise him of his options.

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. There are many Utah cases that have interpreted custodial interrogation and when Miranda Warnings are required to be given by peace officers. In *Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (1983) *and *Salt Lake City v. Gallegos, 2009 UT 42*, the Utah Supreme Court explains the circumstances in which a peace officer is required to give Miranda Warnings. In* Carner*, the Utah Supreme Court held that the defendant was not in custody, or otherwise significantly deprived of his freedom. Nor did custody compel the defendant to take field sobriety tests. Defendant was requested and he agreed, both verbally and by his attempts at compliance, to perform the field sobriety tests. Therefore, the defendant was not compelled to give evidence against himself. The relevant facts in *Carner* are as follows: The peace officer observed defendant's vehicle cross the center line of the street three separate times while traveling approximately one block; After defendant's vehicle made a sweeping left turn, the peace officer pulled defendant over; Upon approaching defendant's vehicle, the peace officer smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle's interior; While speaking with the defendant, the peace officer noticed that defendant's speech was slurred; The peace officer asked the defendant to get out of the vehicle and requested that defendant perform field sobriety tests; The defendant verbally agreed to perform the field sobriety tests; The peace officer instructed defenda

No. He might be able to contest a conviction, but it's not because of any problem with Miranda rights. They only apply to statements someone makes after he is in custody. He would do well to hire a lawyer, and probably should learn that when you are being stopped by a police officer, at that moment he or she is not your friend.

No, unless he asked them to read the Miranda rights to him. Still, there could be other factors that could warrant a dismissal.

Miranda only has to be read after a person is cuffed, and only if the cop intends on interrogating the person further. Most cops are trained to get everything they need from a suspect's mouth prior to cuffing, so Miranda rarely applies. Your friend needs to hire a DUI specialist, because this Miranda fantasy won't save him.