Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[RadiomanATL]

I'll have to read the decisions before forming a real opinion but I have to say I find this surprising.

I don't know if it's been explained in the thread yet. Probably has, but I'll weigh in with some facts:

washingtonpost.com

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

"It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.

The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."

"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.

Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

Being uncommunicative is NOT the same as invoking your Miranda rights.

Also, the suspect was NOT remaining silent.

 

[lawbuff]

In a span of 12 years, the SC overturned themselves.

In 1949, it was ruled the Exclusionary rule was NOT applicable to the states.

In 1961, they overturned themselves.

The Court, depending on the makeup, will rule whatever it feels, stare decisis or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I like it when you guys resort to that stale old gambit. It shows that you STILL aren't thinking.

I never said, suggested or implied that if something isn't mentioned in the Constitution that any law about that topic is unConstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't mention an air force either, that doesn't mean that I think an advancement in military technology or general technology is unConstitutional, either.

What I DID say was that the Constitution does not call for -- and no VALID inference of anything said IN the Constitution compels -- the absurd conclusion that cops must advise suspects that they are permitted to remain silent. The consequence for failing to adhere to that JUDGE-MADE rule are also patently ridiculous. A jury serves a truth seeking function. But the penalty for failing to TELL some schmuck that he has a Constitutional right he should already know about is that the jury gets deprived of the statements made BY the accused for no rational reason. That makes it a bit difficult for them to find the truth. In fact, it is the government denying them the ability to do so. Society pays. There's no rational Constitutionally-VALID argument in support of that nonsense.

The rational argument in favor of the Miranda ruling is that we, as a society, play by rules. The Supreme Court is the sole Constitutional authoirity for detirmining what those rules are for the Judicial branch of the government. Miranda does not require that police tell suspects their rights, it requires them to inform them of those rights if they want to use that evidence against them in court, over which they have sole discretion.

The 14th Amendment incorporates all rights in the Constitution to everyone by forbidding states from denying people any rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a valid, rational, and constituional, argument showing why Miranda is constitutional, care to tell me again that I cannot articulate one?

 

[Liability]

I like it when you guys resort to that stale old gambit. It shows that you STILL aren't thinking.

I never said, suggested or implied that if something isn't mentioned in the Constitution that any law about that topic is unConstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't mention an air force either, that doesn't mean that I think an advancement in military technology or general technology is unConstitutional, either.

What I DID say was that the Constitution does not call for -- and no VALID inference of anything said IN the Constitution compels -- the absurd conclusion that cops must advise suspects that they are permitted to remain silent. The consequence for failing to adhere to that JUDGE-MADE rule are also patently ridiculous. A jury serves a truth seeking function. But the penalty for failing to TELL some schmuck that he has a Constitutional right he should already know about is that the jury gets deprived of the statements made BY the accused for no rational reason. That makes it a bit difficult for them to find the truth. In fact, it is the government denying them the ability to do so. Society pays. There's no rational Constitutionally-VALID argument in support of that nonsense.

The rational argument in favor of the Miranda ruling is that we, as a society, play by rules. The Supreme Court is the sole Constitutional authoirity for detirmining what those rules are for the Judicial branch of the government. Miranda does not require that police tell suspects their rights, it requires them to inform them of those rights if they want to use that evidence against them in court, over which they have sole discretion.

Playing by the rules does NOT mean that the police should be turned in to school teachers.

The SCOTUS is ONE of the Constitutional authorities for determining what those rules are for the Judicial Branch. In ACTUALITY, chief, Congress can provide rules for the SCOTUS too, such as whether in certain matters they even have jurisdiction to HEAR some disputes.

As for the "rules" the Court made up out of whole clothe relative to issuing warnings to suspects, there is NO Constitutional basis for them making ANY such rule OR law. The fact that they CLAIM such authority for themselves does NOT make it true.

The 14th Amendment incorporates all rights in the Constitution to everyone by forbidding states from denying people any rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

That is an incorrect and wildly overbroad statement about the law. You are, to put it bluntly, speaking out of ignorance.

This is a valid, rational, and constituional, argument showing why Miranda is constitutional, care to tell me again that I cannot articulate one?

You remain wrong. Saying something and declaring that you have made a valid and rational argument are not synonymous.

So yes, I DO care to tell you again: You cannot articulate a VALID Constitutionally-based argument for the Miranda decision. Don't fret. The Court promulgated that rule and they've never been able to articulate a valid Constitutionally premised basis for it, either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Playing by the rules does NOT mean that the police should be turned in to school teachers.

They are not school teachers. If they were they would be required to instruct them just how stupid they are for talking to cops at all, and not be permitted to question them until they demonstrated a passing grade. They are free to talk to them after arrest, as long as they do not try to use that evidence to convict them.

The SCOTUS is ONE of the Constitutional authorities for determining what those rules are for the Judicial Branch. In ACTUALITY, chief, Congress can provide rules for the SCOTUS too, such as whether in certain matters they even have jurisdiction to HEAR some disputes.

Only to a point, as some things are clearly spelled out to be the jurisdiction of SCOTUS in the Constitution. Regardless, after something is in its jurisdiction, it is in their sole purview. Congress cannot go back and change the rules, or decide to try someone themselves.

As for the "rules" the Court made up out of whole clothe relative to issuing warnings to suspects, there is NO Constitutional basis for them making ANY such rule OR law. The fact that they CLAIM such authority for themselves does NOT make it true.

As I said earlier, this rule only applies if they want to use evidence in court. If they do not attempt to use anything a suspect says, or anything they find as a result of what he says, against that suspect, they can question him as long as they want.

Do you understand this rule applies only to evidence used in court, and not one that limits the police? Your beef with it because it hampers police investigating crimes is unfounded.

That is an incorrect and wildly overbroad statement about the law. You are, to put it bluntly, speaking out of ignorance.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but SCOTUS disagrees with you.

You remain wrong. Saying something and declaring that you have made a valid and rational argument are not synonymous.

So yes, I DO care to tell you again: You cannot articulate a VALID Constitutionally-based argument for the Miranda decision. Don't fret. The Court promulgated that rule and they've never been able to articulate a valid Constitutionally premised basis for it, either.

Only because you seem to think that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits SCOTUS from defining rules of evidence. Miranda applies only to evidence used in court, so any argument you have against it has to be rationally based in how it restricts courts, not how police have to act as teachers for suspects. It is entirely possible for a criminal to be arrested, and convicted, without the police ever asking him a thing. Most prosecutors prefer to take actual evidence to court, and not just a confession, at least that is my experience.

Has Miranda resulted in some guilty people getting out on a technicality? Probably, but it has also resulted in a judicial system that is widely recognized as the best in the world. We also have some of the smartest police in the world, because they know they cannot just arrest everyone who they think is guilty, they have to find proof.

You are a lot better off with it then without it, even if you do not think so.

 

[Liability]

Playing by the rules does NOT mean that the police should be turned in to school teachers.

They are not school teachers. If they were they would be required to instruct them just how stupid they are for talking to cops at all, and not be permitted to question them until they demonstrated a passing grade. They are free to talk to them after arrest, as long as they do not try to use that evidence to convict them.

You miss the point; but you seem to be a lib, so that's par for the course. Cops are told to act like school teachers whether you agree or not. They aren't directed to get some of the skells a GED. But they are required to teach a freakin' civics lesson. 5th Amendment 101. And that's just plain wrong. Teachers should do the teaching. Cops have other responsibilities. But I do have a fair trade-off. I won't ask teachers to solve crime of save kidnap victims or catch perps, either.

The SCOTUS is ONE of the Constitutional authorities for determining what those rules are for the Judicial Branch. In ACTUALITY, chief, Congress can provide rules for the SCOTUS too, such as whether in certain matters they even have jurisdiction to HEAR some disputes.

Only to a point, as some things are clearly spelled out to be the jurisdiction of SCOTUS in the Constitution. Regardless, after something is in its jurisdiction, it is in their sole purview. Congress cannot go back and change the rules, or decide to try someone themselves.

Yeah. I know. That's why I said it the way I did, kid. And you remain wrong. What is now in the SCOTUS jurisdiction might be eliminated. And what they CLAIM is in their jurisdiction is not necessarily actually in their jurisdiction. There ARE ways to remedy their errors, too. Checks and balances are like all cool and shit, eh?
Yes. Congress absolutely CAN go back and change some rules. And it would be really good if they'd do so every once in a damn while.

As I said earlier, this rule only applies if they want to use evidence in court. If they do not attempt to use anything a suspect says, or anything they find as a result of what he says, against that suspect, they can question him as long as they want.

You are so plodding and thick headed in your "thinking," guys like you cannot fathom that it is TRUE that sometimes a cop can conduct a very detailed interrogation of a suspect without giving the guy Miranda warnings AT ALL and yet every word of what that guys says could STILL be used against him in a criminal trial. I can think of at least two such scenarios right off the top of my head. Quick: admit or deny.

Do you understand this rule applies only to evidence used in court, and not one that limits the police? Your beef with it because it hampers police investigating crimes is unfounded.

My beef is perfectly well founded and your incomplete grasp of what the law says hampers your ability to discuss the topic meaningfully. Obtaining a statement from a suspect only to be prevented from using it is often pretty freakin' POINTLESS, by the way. I realize you embrace such dysfunctional wastes of time, but I don't. I am not a "lib."

That is an incorrect and wildly overbroad statement about the law. You are, to put it bluntly, speaking out of ignorance.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Actually, no they don't. The difference is: I know what I'm talking about and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

You remain wrong. Saying something and declaring that you have made a valid and rational argument are not synonymous.

So yes, I DO care to tell you again: You cannot articulate a VALID Constitutionally-based argument for the Miranda decision. Don't fret. The Court promulgated that rule and they've never been able to articulate a valid Constitutionally premised basis for it, either.

Only because you seem to think that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits SCOTUS from defining rules of evidence.

I never said any such thing. SO no bonus round for you, kid.

Miranda applies only to evidence used in court, so any argument you have against it has to be rationally based in how it restricts courts, not how police have to act as teachers for suspects. It is entirely possible for a criminal to be arrested, and convicted, without the police ever asking him a thing. Most prosecutors prefer to take actual evidence to court, and not just a confession, at least that is my experience.

You are mindlessly repeating your void point. This serves no rational purpose. But here's a news flash for you. A confession and admission or even just a statement CONSTITUTE "actual evidence." Again, you simply have no handle on this topic.

Has Miranda resulted in some guilty people getting out on a technicality? Probably, but it has also resulted in a judicial system that is widely recognized as the best in the world. We also have some of the smartest police in the world, because they know they cannot just arrest everyone who they think is guilty, they have to find proof.

You are a lot better off with it then without it, even if you do not think so.

We would be a lot better off with the reversal of the Miranda decision than we are with it, whether you accept the obvious rectitude of that statement or not. See? It's all easy to say. The difference is: I'm correct. Miranda has nothing to do with our having a great justice system. Miranda is an impediment to justice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We would be a lot better off with the reversal of the Miranda decision than we are with it, whether you accept the obvious rectitude of that statement or not. See? It's all easy to say. The difference is: I'm correct. Miranda has nothing to do with our having a great justice system. Miranda is an impediment to justice.

Prove it.

Provide evidence, not rhetoric, that makes your point. Show me where we are worse off with Miranda than without it, point to statistics that prove that the crime rate has increased since Miranda became the rule. Show me how all those people getting off on a technicality has led to a degeneration of our way of life. How has it has led to armed camps of criminals who thumb there noses at cops.

I want you to detail to me exactly why we are worse off as a result of Miranda by showing me the real world consequences of its existence.

 

[Modbert]

I want you to detail to me exactly why we are worse off as a result of Miranda by showing me the real world consequences of its existence.

That's a great question.

 

[ihopehefails]

The Founding Fathers fought the British to get their Miranda Warnings! This is a sham and Sonia's wise Latina vagina says so!

Miranda warnings did not exist until the 1960s.

 

[ihopehefails]

I am glad about this because miranda is kind of stupid anyways because cops had to read a card and practically proved that they perform the Vulcan mind meld against the suspect to the courts or the suspect would be released. It was stupid since the beginning.

However, this does not take away someone's right to be silent since they can simply assert that right whenever they want. This decision did not take that away. It simply said that the burden to assert that right is on the suspect and not on the arresting officer.

 

[Liability]

We would be a lot better off with the reversal of the Miranda decision than we are with it, whether you accept the obvious rectitude of that statement or not. See? It's all easy to say. The difference is: I'm correct. Miranda has nothing to do with our having a great justice system. Miranda is an impediment to justice.

Prove it.

Provide evidence, not rhetoric, that makes your point. Show me where we are worse off with Miranda than without it, point to statistics that prove that the crime rate has increased since Miranda became the rule. Show me how all those people getting off on a technicality has led to a degeneration of our way of life. How has it has led to armed camps of criminals who thumb there noses at cops.

I want you to detail to me exactly why we are worse off as a result of Miranda by showing me the real world consequences of its existence.

Right after YOU "prove" your position with evidence not rhetoric. You seem to believe that your own opinions are entitled to great weight and must go unchallenged.

I have already demonstrated that the consequence of the entirely JUDGE-CREATED Miranda "rule" is that perfectly good evidence (the statements) of suspects -- including for the most part very very guilty defendants -- get EXCLUDED as evidence because of that absurd rule. Show me that I'm wrong. Establish empirically that YOUR position was correct. Meet your own standards.

But you won't.

 

[Liability]

I want you to detail to me exactly why we are worse off as a result of Miranda by showing me the real world consequences of its existence.

That's a great question.

No it isn't. It's mindless and indicative of his own double standard. This explains your endorsement.

 

[SFC Ollie]

News flash.............

I just took a look out the back door and Miranda Rights were still there. Don't even look like they've changed much over all these years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We would be a lot better off with the reversal of the Miranda decision than we are with it, whether you accept the obvious rectitude of that statement or not. See? It's all easy to say. The difference is: I'm correct. Miranda has nothing to do with our having a great justice system. Miranda is an impediment to justice.

Prove it.

Provide evidence, not rhetoric, that makes your point. Show me where we are worse off with Miranda than without it, point to statistics that prove that the crime rate has increased since Miranda became the rule. Show me how all those people getting off on a technicality has led to a degeneration of our way of life. How has it has led to armed camps of criminals who thumb there noses at cops.

I want you to detail to me exactly why we are worse off as a result of Miranda by showing me the real world consequences of its existence.

Right after YOU "prove" your position with evidence not rhetoric. You seem to believe that your own opinions are entitled to great weight and must go unchallenged.

I have already demonstrated that the consequence of the entirely JUDGE-CREATED Miranda "rule" is that perfectly good evidence (the statements) of suspects -- including for the most part very very guilty defendants -- get EXCLUDED as evidence because of that absurd rule. Show me that I'm wrong. Establish empirically that YOUR position was correct. Meet your own standards.

But you won't.

Now you sound just like a 10 year old. Can we just skip all the stupidity and go straight to the double dog dare? It shouldn't be difficult for you to prove your point it you are right. All you have to do is point out the sudden spike in crime rates since 1966 that would be a result of police suddenly being forced to let all those criminals go on technicalities. then you could compare those stats to another country, like the UK, that is not hampered by Miranda, and prove that the crime rate did not suffer a similar spike.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2007 — Infoplease.com

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

There is all the information you need to make me, and everyone else who is arguing against you, look like an idiot. Feel free, point out the differences between the UK's sane policy of denying suspects the right to remain silent, and not letting them off on technicalities, and ours of doing just that. Show just how bad off we are as a result of Miranda.

 

[George Costanza]

News flash.............

I just took a look out the back door and Miranda Rights were still there. Don't even look like they've changed much over all these years.

I played golf today with a superior court judge, a retired, career public defender and another, active public defender. We were discussing the recent USSC decision abrogating the right to remain silent in a Miranda context.

Everyone agreed - practically speaking, it doesn't mean too damn much. In point of fact, it is very rare to see a suspect who just sits there and says nothing. Most of them waive their Miranda rights and spill their guts. Those who don't, invoke, i.e., "lawyer up." I don't think I can ever remember a case where my client just sat there and remained silent and no one else in my golfing group could either.

But the Miranda rights have indeed changed over the years - and in ways that have significantly weakened the effect of the Miranda decision. Off the top of my head, I can give you three, major changes that have taken place (and there are a number of others): (1) The requirement that the suspect be "in custody" has been significantly watered down, so that now, the suspect must be very clearly detained if not formally arrested, before Miranda swings into effect; situations where the suspect has not been formally detained, but is not free to leave, will not trigger Miranda any more. (2) Now, statements intentionally obtained in violation of Miranda can be used against a defendant who takes the stand and testifies, by way of impeachment; such would not have been allowed under the original Miranda decision. (3) A so-called "public safety exception" has been carved into the Miranda decision, allowing non-Mirandized statements to come in if they are obtained in a situation where police need information urgently to protect some aspect of public safety, i.e., a gun hidden near a grammar school or some such.

 

[Toome]

News flash.............

I just took a look out the back door and Miranda Rights were still there. Don't even look like they've changed much over all these years.

I played golf today with a superior court judge, a retired, career public defender and another, active public defender. We were discussing the recent USSC decision abrogating the right to remain silent in a Miranda context.

Everyone agreed - practically speaking, it doesn't mean too damn much. In point of fact, it is very rare to see a suspect who just sits there and says nothing. Most of them waive their Miranda rights and spill their guts. Those who don't, invoke, i.e., "lawyer up." I don't think I can ever remember a case where my client just sat there and remained silent and no one else in my golfing group could either.

But the Miranda rights have indeed changed over the years - and in ways that have significantly weakened the effect of the Miranda decision. Off the top of my head, I can give you three, major changes that have taken place (and there are a number of others): (1) The requirement that the suspect be "in custody" has been significantly watered down, so that now, the suspect must be very clearly detained if not formally arrested, before Miranda swings into effect; situations where the suspect has not been formally detained, but is not free to leave, will not trigger Miranda any more. (2) Now, statements intentionally obtained in violation of Miranda can be used against a defendant who takes the stand and testifies, by way of impeachment; such would not have been allowed under the original Miranda decision. (3) A so-called "public safety exception" has been carved into the Miranda decision, allowing non-Mirandized statements to come in if they are obtained in a situation where police need information urgently to protect some aspect of public safety, i.e., a gun hidden near a grammar school or some such.

I agree with you that these three changes appear to be "clarifications;" however, they seem to be regarded as loopholes. I conducted interrogations/interviews as an investigator in the military, and these did not apply to us. Instead, if an individual was a suspect, then we read them their Article 31 rights (military version of the Miranda Rights Warning) regardless of whether or not it was a custodial interview or if any of the other situations you described applied. We could not conduct non-custodial interviews; or to put it another way, we had to advise Article 31 rights during non-custodial interrogations.

At the time, I was frustrated at the military's overzealous interpretation of Miranda and supported most of the "changes"/"clarifications" you outlined. However, now that I look back on it, I tend to lean more towards a tighter interpretation. Whether or not an individual is in custody shouldn't change the requirement for Miranda. If the investigators believe that the individual may have committed the crime, then they should Mirandize. I believe that the only exception ought to be when the investigators have not yet identified possible suspects or originally identify the individual as a witness and that person later becomes a suspect. This makes sense, or to put it another way, the "reasonable person" standard applies. Otherwise, I see this exception as a license to drill a person as long as the front door is left open (an exaggerated definition of the difference between custodial and non-custodial interrogations).

As for the other exception, I can see it only when it's a matter of immediate safety, but I've seen it handled when I was in the military without skipping the advisement. For example, a suspect is secured first and foremost before being interrogated. This includes being searched and everything within reach being searched without obtaining any consent. The "ticking bomb" scenario didn't really apply. Makes sense to have this as an exception; however, again, in my experience during joint jurisdiction investigations, I saw this as a license to drill the suspect before snapping on the cuffs.

I don't know about this current decision. Seems to me that it wasn't really necessary. The suspect has to respond whether or not he wants to invoke. If the suspect wants a lawyer, it's not necessary to determine if that suspect wants to remain silent. Once a suspect says he wants a lawyer, then no one asks any questions until that lawyer arrives. If a suspect says he does not want a lawyer, then the questions continue. Seems pretty black and white to me.

I know that whenever these types of court decisions are made, there's a tendency to envision how we would like to see a rapist, murderer, terrorist or other despicable criminal treated. And this makes it easier to accept these decisions/definitions of rights. However, we also need to envision how we would want to be treated if we were in the hot seat. In other words, in order to apply the standard of presumed innocence, we need to picture ourselves in that situation. (Most people would say that if you didn't do anything wrong, then you shouldn't be bothered with it. That makes sense until actually placed in that situation, then everything changes.)

I don't see this as a reversal of Miranda, but I do see it as a dangerous erosion. It certainly adds to the slippery slope argument.

 

[Father Time]

They had the guy in the room for hours and he refused to talk. If the cops didn't realize he was using his right to remain silent then they're fucking morons who shouldn't be on the force.

They were looking for a loophole to continue grilling the guy and now they have one.

Who wants to bet they'll conveniently forget to tell suspects they have to assert their right to remain silent?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They had the guy in the room for hours and he refused to talk. If the cops didn't realize he was using his right to remain silent then they're fucking morons who shouldn't be on the force.

They were looking for a loophole to continue grilling the guy and now they have one.

Who wants to bet they'll conveniently forget to tell suspects they have to assert their right to remain silent?

Good thing you didn't bother to read the case. He murdered, fled the state and changed his identity. But the poor man had to sit in a room for "hours!"

 

[editec]

You have the right to remain silent while being waterboarded.

That's not the land of the free and the home of the brave I signed on for.

The SCOTUS is nuts.

 

[fyrenza]

All it's saying is that, in order to STOP an interrogation and any questioning,

YOU must invoke Your right to remain silent,

just like, if you WANT a lawyer, you have to invoke THAT right by telling them.

In other words, it isn't assumed that you want either, and YOU have the choice.

Quite frankly, I see that as a major plus for the suspects, 'cuz once they opt to STFU, the police can't KEEP ON with some sort of taunting inquisition, trying to confuse the person into a slip of the lip.