7. If I Don't Have to Answer Questions, Does This Mean I Can Sue（控告） a Police Officer for Trying to Question Me?

　　No. Even in the complete absence of probable cause to arrest or suspicion to conduct a "stop and frisk," police officers have the same right as anyone else to approach people and try to talk to them. Of course, if the person refuses to talk, the officer must stop.

　　Case Example: Officer Stan Doff knocks on the front door of Dee Fensive's home. When Dee answers the door, the officer says, "I'd like to ask you a few questions about a robbery （搶劫）that took place across the street a few minutes ago. Have you noticed any suspicious （可疑的）people hanging around the neighborhood lately?" Dee indicates that She has seen nothing, does not want to talk further and closes the door. Officer Doff then leaves.

　　Question: Has the officer violated （侵犯）Dee's rights?

　　Answer: No. The officer has a right to try to question Dee. When Dee indicated that she did not want to talk, the officer ended the interview. The officer's actions are legally proper.

　　8. Doesn't a Police Officer Always Have to Read Me My "Miranda Rights（米蘭達權(quán)利）" Before Questioning Me?

　　No. A "Miranda warning]（米蘭達警告）" essentially advises people of their constitutional right to not answer questions and to have an attorney present if they do decide to talk to police officers. （See Question 13.） But the Miranda warning is required only if the person being questioned is in custody and the police want to later use the answers in court. This means that statements by a person not in custody may later be used against the person in court even though no Miranda warning was given. （See Question 19.）

　　Case Example: Officer Dave Bouncer is investigating a barroom（酒吧間） brawl（斗毆）. The bartender indicates that a patron named Bob Sawyer might be able to identify the instigator（挑起者、煽動者） of the brawl. When Officer Bouncer interviews Bob, Bob makes statements implicating himself in the brawl. Officer Bouncer did not read Bob his "Miranda rights."

　　Question: If Bob is charged with a crime concerning the brawl, will Bob's statements to Officer Bouncer be admissible as evidence（證據(jù)）?

　　Answer: Yes. At the time Officer Bouncer spoke to Bob, Bob was not in custody. Thus, "Miranda warnings" were not required as a condition of admissibility.

　　本節(jié)的問題：　　1、米蘭達警告的內(nèi)容是什么？中英文回答均可。

　　2、警官在什么情況下無需提出米蘭達警告，而取得的證據(jù)可作為控訴的依據(jù)？

　　答案：　　1、

　　· You have the right to remain silent.

　　· If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.

　　· You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.

　　· If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire

　　2、沒有被羈押，NOT IN CUSTODY