Miranda loses some more of its teeth

[vaskidmark]

From Stephen Wenger's Daily DUF newsletter:

It has not been a good week for the famed Miranda warning at the hands of the Supreme Court. In decisions issued on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Court ruled that confessions should be admitted at trial even when police interviewed suspects in circumstances that lower courts viewed as Miranda violations. The Court on Wednesday issued Maryland v. Shatzer, establishing new, more permissive rules for police who want to question a suspect for a second time after the suspect invokes Miranda's right to remain silent. The Maryland case came down a day after the justices decided Florida v. Powell, in which a 7-2 majority Court said that Florida's alternative wording of the Miranda warning is acceptable, even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning…

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202444467846&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20100225NLJ&kw=%27Miranda%27%20dealt%20one-two%20punch%20by%20high%20court&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

…Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the words, "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." … (Remember, if you are involved in a self-defense incident, it is best to say no more than to identify yourself as the victim of a life-threatening attack and, if applicable, to point out witnesses and physical evidence before either can disappear. It is better to spend a night in jail than to spend many years in prison – wait for an attorney!)

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/2008676-Supreme-Court-backs-police-on-questioning-subjects/
---

Crap!  now every cop in the land will have to relearn that famouse warning:

You might have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do not say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You might have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one might be appointed to you.  Even if you do have an attorney, we will manipulate anything you say, or do not say based on the advice of your attorney, to use against you in a court of law. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?  Even if we forgot to explain these rights to you, we will get to use anything you did or did not say against you in a court of law because the Supreme Court says these rights are not really real rights all the time.

I'm gonna have a stroke and lose my ability to speak.  Let the cops deal with that!!

stay safe.

skidmark

[RevDisk]

Biggest rule for dealing with the police if they may potentially think you have committed a crime:

ID yourself.  Ask for a lawyer.  Shut up.   

SHUT UP.  Do not offer explanations, justifications, ANYTHING.  SHUT UP. 

[crt360]

Biggest rule for dealing with the police if they may potentially think you have committed a crime:

ID yourself.  Ask for a lawyer.  Shut up.   

SHUT UP.  Do not offer explanations, justifications, ANYTHING.  SHUT UP. 

Good advice, BUT, if they start beating your ass, scream for your mama.  When your attorney has the dashcam video replayed in court, you want it to make a memorable impression on the jurors.  This is especially important if you were, at the time, on the ground out of sight of the camera.

[MechAg94]

So, in this case, the suspect had the following explained to him or at least he signed the statement.

"You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

Then after signing off on that, he decided to talk anyway. 

Can someone explain what the outrage is?  I was under that impression that the Miranda rules did not outlaw interviewing a suspect without a lawyer present, it simply required them to explain that right.  Why does this not qualify?  Was the guy sweated for several hours until he gave up the information?  The article doesn't mention that.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Yep. Miranda took a big ding. But what is sad are the few celebrating this as if a roadblock has been removed. 

[MechAg94]

For those of us who are not lawyers and have never been arrested, what ding is this?  It wasn't real clear to me.

[Hawkmoon]

I fail to see any "ding." The guy was advised that anything he said could be used against him, and that he had a right to a lawyer. He signed a piece of paper acknowledging that he understood that ... then he confessed.

Where's the problem?

[RevDisk]

I fail to see any "ding." The guy was advised that anything he said could be used against him, and that he had a right to a lawyer. He signed a piece of paper acknowledging that he understood that ... then he confessed.

Where's the problem?

Dunno what specific ding the others mean, but I'm worried that the cops will now be allowed to continue the head games and confession baiting after you said "Lawyer, kthxbye".  Yea, I know.  Theoretically, one should know to STFU.  Not everyone is a professional suspect and has a lot of experience at being grilled by the cops.

[Tallpine]

professional suspect

Not one of those things to list on the resume :)

[tyme]

Dunno what specific ding the others mean, but I'm worried that the cops will now be allowed to continue the head games and confession baiting after you said "Lawyer, kthxbye".  Yea, I know.  Theoretically, one should know to STFU.  Not everyone is a professional suspect and has a lot of experience at being grilled by the cops.

That would be my concern as well.  Sitting in a room for 15, 30, 60+ minutes while they "try" to find your lawyer, after you've asked for one, only to have the cop keep trying to bait you?  I know theoretically you should never talk, but a lot of people in that situation could be provoked into talking.

I don't think these decisions said anything like that, though.  The Shatzer decision, as far as I can tell, simply created a 14-day limit after which the "I want my lawyer" no longer applies, and cops can re-interview (I assume still pursuant to a miranda warning).  Asking for a lawyer is the interrogation "off" switch.  They just limited the "off" switch to 14 days.

[Balog]

The issue with Miranda is that it presumes you actually understand your rights, when that is often not the case. Being forced to sign some document you don't really understand should not be "proof" that you are aware of your rights.

That being said, it's down to personal responsibility on the part of the questioned to know their rights anyway.

[MechAg94]

The issue with Miranda is that it presumes you actually understand your rights, when that is often not the case. Being forced to sign some document you don't really understand should not be "proof" that you are aware of your rights.

That being said, it's down to personal responsibility on the part of the questioned to know their rights anyway.

Yeah, your second part.  I don't think you can reasonably expect the cops to do an 8 hour seminar on suspect's rights.  They shouldn't be speed reading the card either, but at some reasonable point, the responsibility goes to the individual.

I don't like the idea of a cop holding you in an interrogation room while they try to trick you into talking either.  By my own definition, that is still interrogation.

[Balog]

On the one hand, it is your responsibility to know your rights.

On the other hand, are we really sure we want to put cops into an adversarial role where tricking people is their goal?

[RevDisk]

On the one hand, it is your responsibility to know your rights.

On the other hand, are we really sure we want to put cops into an adversarial role where tricking people is their goal?

Aside from folks caught in the act or the blatantly obvious, you'd honestly be surprised how criminals talk themselves into jail.

[Hawkmoon]

On the one hand, it is your responsibility to know your rights.

On the other hand, are we really sure we want to put cops into an adversarial role where tricking people is their goal?

You make it seem that is not already the case. The police have already obtained Supreme Court affirmation that it's acceptable for the police to lie to subjects during interrogation. Once that has been enshrined and blessed as lawful behavior, how can anything they do (short of rubber hoses and socks filled with old pennies) be any worse?

[Balog]

You make it seem that is not already the case. The police have already obtained Supreme Court affirmation that it's acceptable for the police to lie to subjects during interrogation. Once that has been enshrined and blessed as lawful behavior, how can anything they do (short of rubber hoses and socks filled with old pennies) be any worse?

I know it's legal and accepted. I still don't like it.

[RevDisk]

You make it seem that is not already the case. The police have already obtained Supreme Court affirmation that it's acceptable for the police to lie to subjects during interrogation. Once that has been enshrined and blessed as lawful behavior, how can anything they do (short of rubber hoses and socks filled with old pennies) be any worse?

Yes, but that's beside the point.

Cops being allowed to lie to you is just one of the multitude of reasons why you STFU after lawyering up.  I assume anyone on this board isn't a repeat offender, ergo they are not experts at the system.  Your lawyer is theoretically one.  That knowledge is as valuable or more so than their knowledge of law.

[MicroBalrog]

Wait. I want to know something.

Why can't we reasonably expect every reasonably-educated [i.e. GED or similar] person to know their basic rights?

I mean, everybody knows about free speech and being allowed to vote. Why can't we include this in education? I'm not saying this should supplant the Miranda Warning. But when I was still in primary school (this was before I moved to a private school), we had a 2-hour/week class on Law. It was well understood it was not a replacement for proper legal advice (primary school ends at 8th Grade here), but we received explanations about how trials work, what the role of the police and the prosecutor is, and so forth, we visited courtrooms and observed real trials, we had a mock trial competition with other schools.

The Miranda warning is good, but it's not a substitute for people actually knowing their rights.

[crt360]

 But when I was still in primary school (this was before I moved to a private school), we had a 2-hour/week class on Law. It was well understood it was not a replacement for proper legal advice (primary school ends at 8th Grade here), but we received explanations about how trials work, what the role of the police and the prosecutor is, and so forth, we visited courtrooms and observed real trials, we had a mock trial competition with other schools.

We could certainly use something like that here.  Maybe even throw in a field trip or two to Hunstville.

[roo_ster]

We could certainly use something like that here.  Maybe even throw in a field trip or two to Hunstville.

I always say the first trip SWMBO & self went on as a couple was to Huntsville to catch an execution.

[In reality it was to Beaumont to see her dad, but we drove right on by the day they gave dude the Big Shot.]

A class on practical interaction with the law would be a useful addition to a basic civics course.

[BridgeRunner]

I'm on a crappy netbook for the next few days, so I haven't read anything but what was quoted in the thread, but it seems to me that the "ding" is in the fact that not only does the warning not explicitly say that the suspect has the right to remain silent, but it strongly suggests that the suspect does NOT have that right.

"You can talk to a lawyer before you do X" sure sounds a lot like "We will eventually make you do X."

 

[Tallpine]

Why can't we reasonably expect every reasonably-educated [i.e. GED or similar] person to know their basic rights?

"reasonably-educated" ...?  Surely you jest 

thats knot what the publik skul sistum is four 

[Scout26]

As I used to tell my soldiers if they were ever questioned (other then as a witness) by the police (German or Military Police) to STFU.  And the when they were done STFU, to STFU some more.  If they were taken to the station and interviewed they were to STFU,then check the boxes on the Rights Waiver form that says "I want to STFU" and "I want a lawyer".  Then they were to STFU.  If they were put into the Detention Cell or Holding Cell they were to comply and STFU.  Oh, and they were to STFU until the Platoon Sergeant or I came and got them and brought them back to the platoon office.

Then and only then, they had one chance to tell the whole, complete, accurate and unvarinshed truth to me and the Platoon Sergeant.  If they were guilty, we would ensure that their record, accomplishments and background were taken into account along with any mitigating circumstances.  If they were innocent, then the Platoon Sergeant and I woud fight tooth and nail for them.