Where does the COnstitution say the cops have to READ YOU your "Miranda" rights?

[Little-Acorn]

You know which ones I mean. You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney, etc. etc. and all the rest.

Of course, it's vitally necessary that accused persons have these rights, even the Boston Marathon Bomber slimeball, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Far too easy for the government to abuse people if we don't ALL have these rights.

But where does it say that, when a cop arrests you, he must suddenly turn into a schoolteacher and inform you of those rights?

If I'm going to drive a car, does some cop have to walk into my driveway before I leave, and inform me that it's illegal to run a stop sign, illegal to speed, illegal to turn left on a red light etc., so that if I later do one of those things I can't claim that I didn't know the law? No. In fact, the cops can simply assume I did know the law, and if I didn't, that's my tough luck. It is NOT their job to inform me of what the law says before I drive and possibly violate a law.

So why is it their job to inform a suspect of what the law says about his rights, when they arrest him?

It's certainly their job to respect his rights, and get him a lawyer if he wants one, and not press him if he doesn't want to answer their questions etc. etc. The Constitution is very clear on that, and again I wouldn't have it any other way. But I have yet to see the part of the Constitution that says it is their job to INFORM him of those rights.

People are yelling about how the cops didn't "Mirandize" the Boston bomber before asking questions. They claim some "public safety" exception, which I would imagine means that if there might be other bombs around waiting to go off, the cops don't have to waste time explaining his rights to him. But, I'm sure, they must RESPECT his rights: Quit questioning him if he doesn't want to answer, get him a lawyer etc.

But to the people screaming that they didn't EXPLAIN his rights to him, I say: So what? Where does the Constitution say they have to EXPLAIN them to him (or to any other suspect)?

I know, I know, the Miranda v. Arizona ruling says so, handed down by a Warren court notorious for inventing laws that never existed. But that doesn't answer my question.

Certainly any suspect must have those rights, no question, and the cops must obey them. But where does the Constitution say the cops must turn into schoolteachers and EXPLAIN them?

 

[Political Junky]

Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mad Scientist]

The two dumbest things you can do when stopped by a Cop:

1. Volunteer Information
2. Consent to Search

The 4th Amendment says that a Search Warrant signed by a judge is need to search your premisses, why does anyone agree to a search? You trust the Cops that much? I don't.

The 5th Amendment is there to protect you from incriminating yourself. So what you need to do when a Police Officer questions you is:

a. Shut up.
b. Keep shutting up.
c. Shut up some more.

Stop helping the Cops f*ck you over, they're not your friends.

 

[PredFan]

They don't have to read them to you. However, any information they get from you cannot be used as evidence in court until you have been read your rights.

 

[Sallow]

You know which ones I mean. You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney, etc. etc. and all the rest.

Of course, it's vitally necessary that accused persons have these rights, even the Boston Marathon Bomber slimeball, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Far too easy for the government to abuse people if we don't ALL have these rights.

But where does it say that, when a cop arrests you, he must suddenly turn into a schoolteacher and inform you of those rights?

If I'm going to drive a car, does some cop have to walk into my driveway before I leave, and inform me that it's illegal to run a stop sign, illegal to speed, illegal to turn left on a red light etc., so that if I later do one of those things I can't claim that I didn't know the law? No. In fact, the cops can simply assume I did know the law, and if I didn't, that's my tough luck. It is NOT their job to inform me of what the law says before I drive and possibly violate a law.

So why is it their job to inform a suspect of what the law says about his rights, when they arrest him?

It's certainly their job to respect his rights, and get him a lawyer if he wants one, and not press him if he doesn't want to answer their questions etc. etc. The Constitution is very clear on that, and again I wouldn't have it any other way. But I have yet to see the part of the Constitution that says it is their job to INFORM him of those rights.

People are yelling about how the cops didn't "Mirandize" the Boston bomber before asking questions. They claim some "public safety" exception, which I would imagine means that if there might be other bombs around waiting to go off, the cops don't have to waste time explaining his rights to him. But, I'm sure, they must RESPECT his rights: Quit questioning him if he doesn't want to answer, get him a lawyer etc.

But to the people screaming that they didn't EXPLAIN his rights to him, I say: So what? Where does the Constitution say they have to EXPLAIN them to him (or to any other suspect)?

I know, I know, the Miranda v. Arizona ruling says so, handed down by a Warren court notorious for inventing laws that never existed. But that doesn't answer my question.

Certainly any suspect must have those rights, no question, and the cops must obey them. But where does the Constitution say the cops must turn into schoolteachers and EXPLAIN them?

Where does the constitution provide for "cops" or "arrests"?

Have a gander at it. The only thing the Constitution provides for is a permanent Navy and a part time citizen army.

That's only to squash rebellions and stop invasions. And keep trade routes open.

 

[Sallow]

The two dumbest things you can do when stopped by a Cop:

1. Volunteer Information
2. Consent to Search

The 4th Amendment says that a Search Warrant signed by a judge is need to search your premisses, why does anyone agree to a search? You trust the Cops that much? I don't.

The 5th Amendment is there to protect you from incriminating yourself. So what you need to do when a Police Officer questions you is:

a. Shut up.
b. Keep shutting up.
c. Shut up some more.

Stop helping the Cops f*ck you over, they're not your friends.

Yup.

 

[SuMar]

The two dumbest things you can do when stopped by a Cop:

1. Volunteer Information
2. Consent to Search

The 4th Amendment says that a Search Warrant signed by a judge is need to search your premisses, why does anyone agree to a search? You trust the Cops that much? I don't.

The 5th Amendment is there to protect you from incriminating yourself. So what you need to do when a Police Officer questions you is:

a. Shut up.
b. Keep shutting up.
c. Shut up some more.

Stop helping the Cops f*ck you over, they're not your friends.

Can't speak for all cops, not all are like the way you describe. My father, retired police officer, would always tell the person he's arresting, after reading the perp's Miranda rights, to get a lawyer because some of the fools he arrested would start volunteering up information without being questioned. He would tell them, "do yourself a favor, get a lawyer." He later got a promotion and started working at Internal Affairs.

 

[Sallow]

The two dumbest things you can do when stopped by a Cop:

1. Volunteer Information
2. Consent to Search

The 4th Amendment says that a Search Warrant signed by a judge is need to search your premisses, why does anyone agree to a search? You trust the Cops that much? I don't.

The 5th Amendment is there to protect you from incriminating yourself. So what you need to do when a Police Officer questions you is:

a. Shut up.
b. Keep shutting up.
c. Shut up some more.

Stop helping the Cops f*ck you over, they're not your friends.

Can't speak for all cops, not all are like the way you describe. My father, retired police officer, would always tell the person he's arresting, after reading the perp's Miranda rights, to get a lawyer because some of the fools he arrested would start volunteering up information without being questioned. He would tell them, "do yourself a favor, get a lawyer." He later got a promotion and started working at Internal Affairs.

I once got pulled over by the police in my 1968 mustang. I thought they were going to give me the business. But they pulled me over for a tail light that was flickering. I couldn't start the car..and they gave me a jump. I took the car home and I found out my alternator crapped out.

Those were nice guys.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They don't have to read them to you. However, any information they get from you cannot be used as evidence in court until you have been read your rights.

This is a valid point.

But it still doesn't answer the more basic question: WHY can't the cops use the info they get from you in court, simply because they haven't READ YOUR RIGHTS TO YOU? If they have scrupulously obeyed what the Constitution actually says, not coerced you, etc., and you announce you know where the murder weapon is and they use your tip to find it... why can they not use the fact in court that you knew where the weapon was, to support their case that you are the murderer?

The Constitution requires that you must have the right to remain silent and all the rest... as it should. But where does it say those rights must be explained to you by the police? As I said in the OP, there is no other instance where cops must explain the law to you.

 

[PredFan]

They don't have to read them to you. However, any information they get from you cannot be used as evidence in court until you have been read your rights.

This is a valid point.

But it still doesn't answer the more basic question: WHY can't the cops use the info they get from you in court, simply because they haven't READ YOUR RIGHTS TO YOU? If they have scrupulously obeyed what the Constitution actually says, not coerced you, etc., and you announce you know where the murder weapon is and they use your tip to find it... why can they not use the fact in court that you knew where the weapon was, to support their case that you are the murderer?

The Constitution requires that you must have the right to remain silent and all the rest... as it should. But where does it say those rights must be explained to you by the police? As I said in the OP, there is no other instance where cops must explain the law to you.

I do not know that answer, but the courts decided it was there.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I do not know that answer, but the courts decided it was there.

Hmm. I wonder.... could the courts be mistaken about that? I sure can't find it in there.

If Congress passed a law (and the Prez signs it) saying you can't use an accused person's evidence in court if you haven't explained his rights to him, that would be a legitimate use of their legislative power, and then it WOULD be the law. Silly, but legal.

But has Congress ever done that?

Why do the courts feel it's OK for them to make such a law themselves, if Congress has never seen fit to enact that law?

 

[Vandalshandle]

One Supreme Court justice has only been dead for 3 days, and Little Acorn is already trying to get his seat on the bench!

 

[Freewill]

You know which ones I mean. You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney, etc. etc. and all the rest.

Of course, it's vitally necessary that accused persons have these rights, even the Boston Marathon Bomber slimeball, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Far too easy for the government to abuse people if we don't ALL have these rights.

But where does it say that, when a cop arrests you, he must suddenly turn into a schoolteacher and inform you of those rights?

If I'm going to drive a car, does some cop have to walk into my driveway before I leave, and inform me that it's illegal to run a stop sign, illegal to speed, illegal to turn left on a red light etc., so that if I later do one of those things I can't claim that I didn't know the law? No. In fact, the cops can simply assume I did know the law, and if I didn't, that's my tough luck. It is NOT their job to inform me of what the law says before I drive and possibly violate a law.

So why is it their job to inform a suspect of what the law says about his rights, when they arrest him?

It's certainly their job to respect his rights, and get him a lawyer if he wants one, and not press him if he doesn't want to answer their questions etc. etc. The Constitution is very clear on that, and again I wouldn't have it any other way. But I have yet to see the part of the Constitution that says it is their job to INFORM him of those rights.

People are yelling about how the cops didn't "Mirandize" the Boston bomber before asking questions. They claim some "public safety" exception, which I would imagine means that if there might be other bombs around waiting to go off, the cops don't have to waste time explaining his rights to him. But, I'm sure, they must RESPECT his rights: Quit questioning him if he doesn't want to answer, get him a lawyer etc.

But to the people screaming that they didn't EXPLAIN his rights to him, I say: So what? Where does the Constitution say they have to EXPLAIN them to him (or to any other suspect)?

I know, I know, the Miranda v. Arizona ruling says so, handed down by a Warren court notorious for inventing laws that never existed. But that doesn't answer my question.

Certainly any suspect must have those rights, no question, and the cops must obey them. But where does the Constitution say the cops must turn into schoolteachers and EXPLAIN them?

It says it in the same place where Obamacare was saved twice and gay marriage laws were written, in a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[ZackB]

A perp must be Mirandized prior to custodial interrogation in order for the perp's words to be admissible. This was created by the Court as a protection against coerced confessions and applies anytime that a perp is (1) in custody and (2) there is an action by the state agent reasonably calculated to elicit information.

You have a right against self incrimination. You have a right to not have a confession beaten out of you. In order to make your constitutional rights meaningful the Court created the Miranda Rule. It effectuates the original intent of the Framers.

 

[OKTexas]

They don't have to read them to you. However, any information they get from you cannot be used as evidence in court until you have been read your rights.

You keep on believing that, there are exceptions to the Miranda rule.

Go to this link and look at subsequent developments.

Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Little-Acorn]

So far, no one has found ANY Constitutional authority for the "requirement" that police must explain a suspect's rights to him, or the "requirement" that prosecutors cannot use any evidence obtained from a suspect unless his rights have been explained to him even though none of his rights have been violated.

Just repeating over and over, "Well, the Supreme Court says so".

They have also not found anything that authorizes the Courts to create new law never enacted by Congress or stated in the Constitution.

Keep trying.

 

[ZackB]

So far, no one has found ANY Constitutional authority for the "requirement" that police must explain a suspect's rights to him, or the "requirement" that prosecutors cannot use any evidence obtained from a suspect unless his rights have been explained to him even though none of his rights have been violated.

Just repeating over and over, "Well, the Supreme Court says so".

They have also not found anything that authorizes the Courts to create new law never enacted by Congress or stated in the Constitution.

Keep trying.

Have you read Miranda and it progeny?

 

[PredFan]

I do not know that answer, but the courts decided it was there.

Hmm. I wonder.... could the courts be mistaken about that? I sure can't find it in there.

If Congress passed a law (and the Prez signs it) saying you can't use an accused person's evidence in court if you haven't explained his rights to him, that would be a legitimate use of their legislative power, and then it WOULD be the law. Silly, but legal.

But has Congress ever done that?

Why do the courts feel it's OK for them to make such a law themselves, if Congress has never seen fit to enact that law?

"Miranda Rights" came from a court case Miranda vs (something). I believe that the SCOTUS ended up ruling on it. You might look there for an answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They don't have to read them to you. However, any information they get from you cannot be used as evidence in court until you have been read your rights.

This is a valid point.

But it still doesn't answer the more basic question: WHY can't the cops use the info they get from you in court, simply because they haven't READ YOUR RIGHTS TO YOU? If they have scrupulously obeyed what the Constitution actually says, not coerced you, etc., and you announce you know where the murder weapon is and they use your tip to find it... why can they not use the fact in court that you knew where the weapon was, to support their case that you are the murderer?

The Constitution requires that you must have the right to remain silent and all the rest... as it should. But where does it say those rights must be explained to you by the police? As I said in the OP, there is no other instance where cops must explain the law to you.

Because the Supreme Court said so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So far, no one has found ANY Constitutional authority for the "requirement" that police must explain a suspect's rights to him, or the "requirement" that prosecutors cannot use any evidence obtained from a suspect unless his rights have been explained to him even though none of his rights have been violated.

Just repeating over and over, "Well, the Supreme Court says so".

They have also not found anything that authorizes the Courts to create new law never enacted by Congress or stated in the Constitution.

Keep trying.

Nonsense.

That you don't like the answer, or don't understand it, doesn't change the fact that the Fifth Amendment safeguards against self-incrimination, and that the state is compelled, through their representatives, sworn law enforcement officers, to ensure criminal suspects detained and held in custody, presumed to be innocent, are aware of the fact that they indeed have the right to remain silent:

“In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” (Miranda v. Arizona (1966))

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

The Supreme Court's interpretive authority concerning what the Constitution means is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Last, Supreme Court decisions do not create 'new law,' that's just as ignorant and as wrong as stating the Court lacks the authority to determine what the Constitution means.