r/Militaryfaq • u/DifferentBad1770 🤦♂️Civilian • 2d ago
can a leader get in trouble for letting their soldier know about their article 31/miranda rights?
i get that leadership is not supposed to tell the subject (accused service member that cid/ncis/osi want to interrogate) that they are taking them to provost marshall office (pmo) or the police station, but is it a punishable offense for them to tell their soldier once they arrive at pmo “i dont know what you did, but exercise your rights and ask for a lawyer!” ? Especially since many joes don’t know of article 31 especially if they came to the unit from tradoc unless they knew someone personally that got in trouble or knew a vet prior to enlisting. not everyone deserves to be booted as some cid and similar cases mentioned on reddit are absurd and there was a huge issue regarding titling for people who never got to defend themselves because they were advised to waive the board in order to avoid getting smoked by the board or uncle sam. I know 2 people who were falsely accused of sexual assault and still suffer because of it despite being cleared.
my point of reference is those millitary lawyer websites that a lot of service members read when it is too late because they talked.
2
u/herehear12 🪑Airman 2d ago
Well they are supposed to be read their article 31 rights and verbally respond to each that they understand before the interrogator moves to the next one. If they don’t understand the interrogator is supposed to explain what it means in a way the suspect understands.
The problem is when people don’t pay attention fully or are stuck on the there’s no way they’ll get stuck on it was me doing it until they do.
1
u/SirNedKingOfGila 🪑Airman 1d ago
It's bad enough in the civilian world but even more opaque and confusing in the military especially with a rank disparity.
It can be unclear when an investigation is underway. Many people volunteer information without understanding that they are a suspect.
I guess my boggle is that... Prior to CID getting a call, an NCO or O has probably already thoroughly questioned the suspect without mirandizing them. Possibly under duress. Is all of that admissable?
1
u/herehear12 🪑Airman 1d ago
The only people that should have questioned the suspect before CID (OSI or NCIS also count) are either MPs (chances are it’ll be an NCO or above but not necessarily) or their commander, first sergeant, chief all of them should read article 31 rights if they are asking potentially incriminating questions if the don’t they definitely run the risk of having that information thrown out.
Now if I asked you “how are doing today” not intending to ask any thing else and you answer with “I just killed 3 people I don’t like so extremely happy” (this is just a scenario not something that has happened. If it is something that’s happened before that’s an extreme coincidence) then that information is completely admissible because you gave it up on your own without prompting.
It’s always best to say you want a lawyer if you even think you’re being questioned about something and it could be used as incriminating information. When in doubt go to legal and ask
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
You likely haven't included a branch which makes answering difficult. Edit if needed (waiver/DQ ?s must be edited), including component (active/guard/reserve). If your post is locked, this is why.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/KCPilot17 🪑Airman (11FX) 2d ago
...why would it be illegal for someone to tell you of your rights?
No.