Can you re-approach someone after they have asked for an attorney during questioning?

Once someone exercises their right to an attorney you cannot re-approach them unless you approach them with their attorney present. Any information obtained without the presence of his/her lawyer will be thrown out.

Can you continue to ask questions of a suspect if they say they don’t want to talk?

Yes you can continue to ask questions of a suspect if they don’t want to talk unless they don’t want to talk because they want their attorney.

What would be an exception to when Miranda would not have to be read?

Under circumstances of extreme emergency where the possibility of saving a life of a missing victim exists, non-coercive questions may be asked of a material witness in custody, even though the answers to the questions may incriminate the witness. People v. Riddle

Other exceptions are traffic stops after asking for license and registration and not receiving satisfactory answers you ask where they are going to/ from. It is not in- custody interrogation.

Implied consent laws in DWI cases where they must submit to breath, blood, or urine tests. Fingerprints, photographs for identification purposes are also exceptions.

Does a police officer need to read Miranda to a suspect immediately?  What is the benefit of waiting or doing it immediately?

No, a police officer does not need to read Miranda to a suspect immediately. The benefit to waiting is that anything said will be admissible in court because you are not questioning them, just letting them talk if they want to.

If a suspect says “I don’t want to talk to you, but I will.”  Is that a waiver of Miranda?  Would a confession be admissible in court?

No, that is not a waiver of Miranda. If he/she does not want to talk later on you may approach them again to see if they want to talk. Yes a confession would be admissible because he/she did not waive their right to Miranda. They just didn't want to talk.

What Constitutional Amendments guarantee a suspect his rights?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents people from being forced to incriminate themselves. The U.S. Supreme Court described this right as “a mainstay of our adversary system of criminal justice.” Under the adversary system, the state and the person in custody are on opposing sides and the advantage is generally with the more powerful party (in other words, the government). The Supreme Court emphasized in the Miranda case that reading a person his rights before questioning counter-balances the inherently coercive environment of a police station or in-custody interrogation.

Sixth Amendment-In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Do you think that Miranda should still be read since most people are aware of the rights provided in Miranda?

Yes, I do believe that it should be read because we cannot assume that everyone knows Miranda. This just takes the questioning of one’s knowledge towards it and covers the officer as well as any statements that can be used in court for a conviction.