Remaining Silent When Being Interrogated in Arizona

Remaining Silent When Being Interrogated in Arizona

| Jun 3, 2020 | Firm News

Interrogation is a primary tool of law enforcement officials across the nation, and they are specifically trained in dealing with suspects who have nothing to say when being questioned. This training includes the ability to continue questioning those who have not adamantly expressed the right to remain silent. Officers are always digging for as much information as possible to support a decision to arrest an individual even on borderline charges. That decision is actually often made before the impromptu investigation even begins. It is important for all Arizona residents to understand how to handle this situation because there are instances when merely suggesting you wish to remain silent is not enough for the questioning to stop.

Being assertive with officers when being questioned is important regardless of the reason for interrogation. Body language and general avoidance in answering questions is not always enough. Indirect answers can still indicate a willingness to respond. While plainly stating you are invoking your right to remain silent is potentially the most effective, requesting to speak to an attorney before or while being questioned could be more effective.

A criminal defense attorney in Arizona has been professionally trained to know what can and cannot be part of an interrogation process, including how a violation of Miranda rights can occur aside from an officer claiming the right to remain silent was never invoked by the suspect. This can be problematic in Arizona when a case goes to court because the court typically sides with all officers when competing versions of events are part of the official record.

Arizona criminal defense lawyers understand that the real problem with a Miranda violation is usually officers continuing the questioning process after the right to remain silent has been generally stated. Badgering and cajoling a suspect could easily be determined as a violation of the right to remain silent, and it could also constitute a claim of undue aggression by the officer against the suspect.