What can happen if the police want to talk to me for threatening someone?
Full Question:
Answer:
The text of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination permits individuals to refuse to answer questions or disclose information that could be used against them in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this right is to inhibit the government from compelling a confession through force, coercion, or deception. Confessions produced by these methods are deemed unreliable because they are often involuntary, unwitting, or the result of the accused's desire to avoid further browbeating rather than being the product of candor or a desire to confess.
In criminal proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) established the rules under which the Self-Incrimination Clause applies to proceedings before trial. In Miranda, the Court held that any statements made by a defendant while in police custody will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have
(1) the right to remain silent;
(2) the right to consult an attorney before being questioned by the police;
(3) the right to have an attorney present during police questioning;
(4) the right to a court appointed attorney if the defendant cannot afford to hire a private attorney; and
(5) the right to be informed that any statements they make can and will be used against them at trial.
The Miranda case acknowledged that these warnings were not expressly mentioned anywhere in the text of the federal Constitution. However, the Court concluded that the warnings constituted an essential part of a judicially created buffer zone that is necessary to protect rights that throughout the Bill of Rights are expressly afforded to criminal defendants. Thus, if a defendant confesses to a crime or makes an otherwise incriminating statement to the police, that statement will be generally excluded from trial unless the defendant was first read the Miranda warnings.
Because of its lack of textual support in the federal Constitution, legal observers have long predicted the demise of Miranda. Much of this speculation has been fueled by subsequent cases in which the Supreme Court carved out exceptions to Miranda. For example, the Court ruled that when a defendant makes an un-Mirandized incriminating statement followed by a later Mirandized confession, the subsequent confession should not be excluded from trial(see Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 [1985]). However, law enforcement officials cannot completely ignore the requirement of Miranda warnings. In 2004, the Court reviewed a case in which officers interrogated a suspect for 30 to 40 minutes without Miranda warnings, eliciting a confession during the process. Once the suspect confessed, the officers gave the Miranda warnings and then led the suspect to give the same account for a second time. In this instance, the Court determined that the confession was involuntary and that this practice violated Miranda. (Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 [2004]).
18-3-206. Menacing.
(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical
action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in
fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor,
but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:
(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a
manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly
weapon; or
(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is
armed with a deadly weapon.
18-3-204. Assault in the third degree.
A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if the person
knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person or with
criminal negligence the person causes bodily injury to another person by
means of a deadly weapon. Assault in the third degree is a class 1
misdemeanor and is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the
modified sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-501(3).