When i was being questioned by school police about a fire that was done in the school(Arson), I was not read my Miranda Warnings. When i was questioned at one point, the officer put handcuffs on me and told me i'm going to jail if i don't stop lying. Is this illegal since it intimidated me physically and mentally.
Yes it is illegal to interrogate someone who is in custody without first reading the rights required under Miranda vs. Arizona. You being in handcuffs is a clear sign that you were in custody. (it is likely you were in custody prior to being in handcuffs anyway. Your remedy will be suppression of any statement you gave if criminal charges are pending. I doubt very much that you have a viable civil rights suit unless criminal charges were also filed and subsequently you were found not guilty or the evidence was suppressed and the charge withdrawn.
Police must read a suspect his/her rights before there is custodial interrogation. For purposes of Miranda, custody occurs when a reasonable person would feel that he/she is not free to leave, and interrogation includes any words or conduct by the police that they should know would likely elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. So, if you were subjected to custodial interrogation (which it sounds like you were), but not read your rights, AND now, the prosecution wants to use your incriminating statement(s) against you, then you need to advise your criminal defense attorney of this very important issue.
First, the Miranda warning must be given whenever a custodial interrogation takes place.
If that sounds like a warning doesn't have to be given except in the kind of circumstances typically shown on popular entertainment outlets (movies, tv programming, novels), that IS NOT WHAT IT MEANS. We are used to this example: Police officers, typically detectives, place a suspect in an interrogation room, one goes to watch through a two-way mirror and listen on a surveillance audio. The other detective questions the suspect in the interrogation room. The suspect might be handcuffed, might be shackled to a table or chair. The detective may quite directly ask or accuse the suspect of criminal wrong-doing, or he may begin with more casual, conversational investigational questions. These cases clearly require a Miranda warning. Failure to give the warning is both stupid and disrespectful of the Constitution. Failure is stupid because absent the Miranda warning, evidence adduced through interrogation that does or may incriminate the suspect will be excluded, as will evidence derived from such information. So the question, did you kill X, asked without a Miranda warning and answered "Yes" will be subject to exclusion. Stupid, right? Now a confessing criminal is protected from the consequences of his honesty.
But take away the police station. Take away the handcuffs. Put the police and suspect on a sidewalk in a downtown area. At the point in time during contact between the police and the suspect where a reasonable person would believe they are no longer FREE TO WALK AWAY, the suspect is "IN CUSTODY" and any interrogation is governed by Miranda.
I'm including a couple of worthwhile links. One of them indicates that your status as a student means that special consideration must be given to whether you were "in custody." This means that, while an informed, reasonable adult might realize that they are free to leave (and thus not in custody), a student, by reason of judgmental immaturity, may reasonably believe (based on their diminished capacity) that they are in custody even if an adult would not so conclude.
As for litigation, if the facts are as you indicated, the officer may have committed both state personal injury law violations, and federal civil rights violations.
When a police officer puts handcuffs on you, she commits battery (a battery means physical contact without consent). If, in this process, the officer puts you in fear of imminent (soon to occur), unwanted physical contact, then she has assaulted you. If the officer wrongly detained you and you were unable to leave a confined space, she may also have inflicted wrongful imprisonment on you. Assault, battery and wrongful imprisonment are all KINDS OF PERSONAL HARMS that MAY be subject to suit. Time limits apply to claims for such injuries, so if you are serious, you should contact a lawyer immediately.
The federal civil rights action most likely to be claimed here would be violation of your Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment prohibits seizure of a person or a person's property without a warrant that was issued based on a probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime. The Sixth Amendment right at issue is your right to be represented by counsel in a criminal prosecution. True, you were, at that point, treated like a suspect, but not actually put on trial. But your right to have an attorney represent you in a criminal trial is pretty meaningless if, until the moment trial begins, the government can ignore that right to counsel and affect the outcome of a possible trial by coercing a confession, etc. in advance.
Still, suing is not an inexpensive enterprise. In a case like the one you've described, I would contact a nonprofit legal organization that provides representation, for example, the Florida Civil Liberties Union.
When you were put into cuffs, you were legally "arrested". That triggers your right to have counsel. If a Miranda warning was not given, it simply means the police cant use any statements you make against you in a prosecution. Police may detain you under reasonable circumstances, and they can call you a liar.
