You see what I mean about riding the train of frustration? Glad to see I'm not the only one aboard today. When dealing with the system, helpful people are sometimes scarce as hens teeth. Enjoy your swim.

So you will go to the initial appearance. What you will miss is the interrogation prior to charges. The cops will keep you in a room for too many hours to count. They will lie to you. They will refer to evidence and witnesses that don't exist. They will mind-bend you until you don't know the difference between up and down, between yes and no.

Then they take you and "your statement" to the Magistrate for your initial appearance.

@Sam...Amen to that. EXACTLY what happens. They asked my nephew if he wanted to call anybody and he said his wife cuz she would be worried...handed him his phone...he unlocked it...and than they grabbed it out of his hands...

@ west...I so commend u. "Now what"...is crucial information to the defendant and family at that first appearance and after.

@Sam: No truer words have ever been spoken. I know hubby was lied to and tricked into admitting something he never did AND then read his rights and arrested.

They never read my son's rights to him. They were 'just talking'. They never told him he could leave (they had no plans to allow him to leave) or that they were going to arrest him until the very end. My husband and I were the idiots who allowed him to go talk to them without counsel. We encouraged him to tell them what happened because they would understand, and know things were not as they seemed.

Almost anything is like this today - not just in the justice world

The police don't have to mirandize everyone if they are talking to you and you are not under arrest. There are rules about when the police have to do so.

"If someone is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial. Police officers often avoid arresting people—and make it clear to them that they're free to go—precisely so they don't have to give the Miranda warning. Then they can arrest the suspect after getting the incriminating statement they wanted all along."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html

They also don't have to tell you are free to go, as long as you can leave.

Exactly - which is why it is so important to know your right before that happens to you! So in the case that Independent talks about even though your Miranda is not read to you the things you say can be used against you - so it is best to stay quiet .....

@Independent, they DROVE my hubby to the police station, he wasn't free to go. They actually never read him his rights, they gave them to read himself(without his glasses). I've done a lot of research on it though, and it's hard to fight on the grounds that you weren't read your rights.

@Kali, simply driving someone to the police station is not necessarily placing someone under arrest. If the police asked your husband, "We would like to have you come down to the police department so you can answer our questions." Is still different legally than a custodial interrogation.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/miranda-the-meaning-custodial-interrogation.html

"Reasonable Person Standard

When considering the above questions in order to determine whether someone was in custody, most courts use what’s called a reasonable person standard. The central question, which the questions above get at, is whether a reasonable person in the same position as the suspect would have felt free to leave.

Example: A police officer contacts Matt about a burglary, and Matt agrees to meet the officer at the police station to talk about it. The officer doesn’t initially give a Miranda warning, instead telling Matt he isn’t under arrest. The officer says he thinks Matt is involved in the burglary, and tells him the police have found Matt’s fingerprints at the scene even though they really haven’t. Five minutes into the interview, Matt confesses. The officer then gives aMiranda warning, and Matt confesses again. A half hour after he entered the station, Matt leaves. The interview wasn’t custodial because Matt voluntarily went to the station, the officer told him he wasn’t under arrest, and he left at the end. (Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977).)

Example: Police officers who are investigating reports of child pornography appear at Bess’s job and tell her to stop working. They escort her to a conference room, where an officer tells her she isn’t under arrest and that she’ll “walk out of here when we’re done.” The officer doesn’t give a Miranda warning. He questions her for over two hours in a generally calm tone. Bess makes incriminating statements during the interview. Although the interview took a long time and Bess didn’t voluntarily walk to the conference room with the officers, she wasn’t in custody because the interview was in a familiar place, she wasn’t isolated from the outside world, and the police didn’t pressure her to confess. The conversation was consensual and not coercive. (US v. Bassignani, 575 F. 3d 879 (9th Cir. 2009).)"

If I remember criminal procedure correctly there is also a rule about when the police have to mirandize people they are talking when they are the lead suspect or something like that. Maybe Aladdin can talk more about that.