What grounds do I have for dismissal of charges if I got arrested for possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana?

They do not have to give you your Miranda rights unless you are already arrested, they ask you questions about matter that can be used against you, and they plan to use the answers in court.

Miranda violations only matter if you were under arrest and being asked questions. Which may apply to your case but an attorney would need to speak with you and see the police report to know if they should file a motion to suppress. Get a local attorney. Under an ounce is an infraction, maybe an attorney could get it reduced.

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. With that said, you should hire a lawyer and get this relatively minor charge dismissed. By yourself you're going to get a criminal record, and it isn't worth it.

Slim unless you get diversion.

Your statement of rights (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a statement of your constitutional rights that police in the United States are required to give to suspects in police custody or in a custodial interrogation before questioned about a possible criminal incident. Custodial interagation happens when a suspect is questioned about a possible crime when the situation is one in which a reasonable person would feel he was not at liberty to leave. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an elicited incriminating statement made by a suspect is not admissible evidence in the prosecutor?s case in chef unless the suspect was informed of the right not to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal repartition, and makes a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. The prosecutor's case in chef is the part of a trial before the prosecutor rests his case and the defense presents his case. The Miranda warning is not required to detain or arrest a suspect. It is a safeguard against self-incrimination as a right under the fifth amendment of the Constitution. If law enforcement officials do not read a person his rights they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements or the evidence obtained from that knowledge to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial. However, if prior to his having his rights the suspect testifies to facts different from in his statements before his was read his rights; the statements can be used to show he may be lying.

You'll need an attorney to review your case to see if you have grounds for a dismissal. Lack of Miranda rights is not grounds for dismissal.

That will depend on the facts of the case to determine if there are any search and seizure or 4th amendment issues that can be argued. The initial point to start looking at is the stop of the vehicle or the reason for the police contact. Then the search or finding of the marijuana will be scrutinized. The police generally either need a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement to search someone. Contrary to popular myth, the police do not have to read you your Miranda rights simply because you are arrested. They only have to give you Miranda warnings if you are arrested and they wish to interrogate you or ask you incriminating questions. Also, if there is a Miranda violation it does not mean the case is dismissed. The remedy for a Miranda violation is to suppress or keep out of evidence the incriminating statements. A Miranda violation will never, ever by itself invalidate an otherwise lawful arrest.

None, based on what you have stated. Police officers don't have to read you your Miranda rights, even if they arrest you. The only time they read the Miranda warning to a suspect is if the cop wants to question the suspect in police custody and use that testimony against the defendant at trial. When the evidence of the crime is very obvious, the police officer doesn't bother reading Miranda rights because they know they have no reason to interrogate the defendant in custody.