Jeonju prosecutors cancel theft suspect's detention over missed Miranda warning
In short
Prosecutors in Jeonju cancelled the detention of a 22-year-old theft suspect after finding that police had not properly informed her of her rights when arresting her, and then indicted her without detention, the Jeonju District Public Prosecution Office (전주지방공소청) said on October 8. The woman is accused of stealing goods worth about 300,000 won in two thefts in Jeonju last month.
Read the full story 2 min read
Prosecutors in Jeonju, in the Jeonbuk region, have cancelled the detention of a theft suspect because police failed to properly inform her of her rights when arresting her, and have indicted her without detention. Criminal Division 1 of the Jeonju District Public Prosecution Office (전주지방공소청), headed by prosecutor Kim Geum-i (김금이), announced the decision on October 8. Kukmin Ilbo reported that the indictment was filed the previous day. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
The suspect, a 22-year-old woman identified only as A, is accused of stealing goods worth about 300,000 won on two occasions in Jeonju last month; Newsis placed the thefts in late September. Police arrested her, a detention warrant was issued, and Kukmin Ilbo reported that police referred her to prosecutors in detention on September 28. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
After the referral, A told the prosecutor that she had not been informed of her Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer, when she was arrested. Prosecutors checked the records and found that police had not properly given her the notice. Judging that the arrest procedure may have been unlawful, they cancelled her detention on September 29, the day after the referral, and released her. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
Yonhap reported that the officer from the local police unit who made the arrest told his superiors he could not clearly remember whether he had given the Miranda notice properly. Newsis reported that the officer, unable to recall whether he had given the notice at the arrest, gave it again later at the office, but that under the law and court precedent a notice given some time after an arrest has no effect, so the prosecutor released A in order to sustain the prosecution. [ 3 , 4 ]
Under Supreme Court precedent, notice of rights must be given before force is used to make an arrest, or, where a suspect has to be subdued, during or immediately after that. Newsis noted that the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act require police to tell a suspect the gist of the alleged offence, the reason for arrest and the right to counsel, in principle before the arrest unless the suspect flees or uses force. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
The prosecution office said it cancelled the detention to protect the suspect's human rights and resolve possible illegality, and would do its utmost to protect human rights during arrests, detention and other compulsory investigation. Kukmin Ilbo reported that the case was handled after the Prosecutors' Office was abolished on October 2 and replaced by public prosecution offices and a Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (중대범죄수사청) under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Under the new system prosecutors file and maintain indictments, while police and the agency carry out direct investigations. [ 1 , 3 ]
Why it matters
The case shows a procedural error at arrest leading prosecutors to release a detained suspect, though the theft charge itself went ahead. Kukmin Ilbo reported that it was handled by the new public prosecution office set up after the Prosecutors' Office was abolished on October 2, under a system in which prosecutors no longer investigate directly.
Key facts
- Criminal Division 1 of the Jeonju District Public Prosecution Office, headed by prosecutor Kim Geum-i (김금이), cancelled the detention of a 22-year-old theft suspect identified as A and indicted her without detention. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- A is accused of stealing goods worth about 300,000 won on two occasions in Jeonju last month. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- After her case was referred to prosecutors, A said she had not been informed of her Miranda rights when she was arrested. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- Prosecutors checked the records and found that police had not properly informed her of her rights during the arrest. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]
- Police referred A to prosecutors in detention on September 28, and her detention was cancelled on September 29, the day after the referral. [ 1 , 4 ]
- Under Supreme Court precedent, notice of rights must be given before force is used to make an arrest, or during or immediately after subduing a suspect. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Prosecutors concluded after further review that the theft charge itself was supported, and indicted A without detention, according to Kukmin Ilbo. [ 1 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- The Jeonju District Public Prosecution Office cancelled A's detention and indicted her without detention on a theft charge. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- A, 22, is accused of stealing goods worth about 300,000 won in two thefts in Jeonju last month. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- Police did not properly inform A of her Miranda rights when arresting her. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]
- The detention was cancelled on September 29, the day after the case was referred to prosecutors. [ 1 , 4 ]
- Supreme Court precedent requires the notice of rights to be given before force is used in an arrest, or during or immediately after subduing a suspect. [ 1 , 3 ]
Still unclear
- Whether the rights notice was never given or was given late. Kukmin Ilbo and Yonhap say police did not give or did not clearly give the notice, while Newsis reports the officer gave it again later at the office, which it says had no legal effect.
- The date of the indictment. Only Kukmin Ilbo states it was filed the day before the October 8 announcement.
- Whether the arresting officer faces any consequences. None of the documents say whether police are reviewing the officer's conduct.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- Kukmin Ilbo reports the cancelled detention and the indictment without detention. [ 1 ]
- Seoul Shinmun reports that police omitted the Miranda notice and prosecutors cancelled the detention. [ 2 ]
- Yonhap reports the case, including the arresting officer's account to his superiors. [ 3 ]
- Newsis reports that the officer gave the notice again later at the office, which had no legal effect. [ 4 ]