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

[FA_Q2]

Thank you for the clarification

 

[Intense]

care to explain?

Possibly the fact that the idiotic thread headline was totally wrong?

That was the start of it.

I also found it amusing that people act like the mean old cops are suddenly gonna start beating confessions out of people.

It also amuses me greatly when people jump on the "this court is making law" bandwagon anytime they get a ruling they don't like. I mean Jesus Christ Google the CON and read what the SCOTUS is supposed to do

I also am highly amused when libertarians start talking about the government. True libertarians dont want any government anyway so what are they babbling about?

The bit where a defense attorney was using a defense attorney blog to prove a defense attorney agenda was also amusing, I mean a lawyer would NEVER lie would he?

Speaking of lies , I found it amusing to read that some think the cops should NEVER lie to suspects. Bet if your child is missing and the police have a suspect in custody you don't care how much they lie to the scumbag....

Just for starters

You make good points, however you project and go off on tangents. Libertarians should not be confused with Anarchists. That's a good place to start.

About cop's lying in interrogation, that's about using evidence in court against the defendant. I'm sure you imagine that's always okay, without regard to reality, but it's not. There are many reasons besides premeditated action that could put a person in that position. When you don't have all of the pieces to the puzzle Sherlock, you do not even know who all of the victims are. In a set up, you'd be the one misleading, misinforming, and jading the whole investigation. Qualify what you do before acting. This is not your world, we are not here on your terms.

 

[George Costanza]

I can't find anywhere in the constitution that says that in order for a valid arrest to be made that someone has to read out some words known as miranda rights.

5th Amendment (Right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendment (Right to counsel).

The Miranda decision is admittedly not directly mandated by any language in the Constitution per se. The decision draws upon the two, quoted Amendments and implements them into the process of police interrogation.

Additionally, do not comb the Constitution looking for a reference to the Miranda case. Miranda was not alive when the Constitution was written . . .

If you are having difficulty understanding all this, let me put it another way which you may be better able to comprehend: The Constitutional limitations of Miranda implement a perverse, yet ever-changing factor of implicit wisdom. In spite of this, marginal regionalization of the decision has never caught into splinter-like ramifications of true trust on the part of the electorate.

 

[ConHog]

I can't find anywhere in the constitution that says that in order for a valid arrest to be made that someone has to read out some words known as miranda rights.

5th Amendment (Right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendment (Right to counsel).

The Miranda decision is admittedly not directly mandated by any language in the Constitution per se. The decision draws upon the two, quoted Amendments and implements them into the process of police interrogation.

Additionally, do not comb the Constitution looking for a reference to the Miranda case. Miranda was not alive when the Constitution was written . . .

If you are having difficulty understanding all this, let me put it another way which you may be better able to comprehend: The Constitutional limitations of Miranda implement a perverse, yet ever-changing factor of implicit wisdom. In spite of this, marginal regionalization of the decision has never caught into splinter-like ramifications of true trust on the part of the electorate.

You have to admit, Miranda was quite a stretch when the ruling first came down, because as you correctly state there is no provision in the CON for LEO to have to inform suspects of their rights upon arrest.

That being said, all this BS aside, this is a fairly silly argument; does anyone really argue that the blabber mouth in this case didn't know his rights as well as the police do? Sure it is true that people get nervous around LEO and some times blurt out things , but rarely if ever, does a perfectly innocent person blurt out a confession because they weren't told they could keep quiet especially in a situation like this where the guy was given his rights then started talking then after the fact decided that well he didn't mean to say that........

Too bad for him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does this mean everyone agrees since nothing really happened to Miranda rights that this thread and its op are MORONS? Or is the left still claiming that Miranda rights were removed still?

If so you may want to discuss that matter with a several leftoids in my thread where I explain that ANY change was actually supported by Obama and company.

 

[Madeline]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

So now, is there any remaining doubt how righty-tighty the present Supreme Court is? Does this mean we can stop listening to bitching about Kagan's nomination?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

So now, is there any remaining doubt how righty-tighty the present Supreme Court is? Does this mean we can stop listening to bitching about Kagan's nomination?

Ya cause after all Obama supported the ruling and sent his people to help get it.

 

[George Costanza]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

So now, is there any remaining doubt how righty-tighty the present Supreme Court is? Does this mean we can stop listening to bitching about Kagan's nomination?

Ya cause after all Obama supported the ruling and sent his people to help get it.

I'm sorry - I just don't get the point you are trying to make on this thread.

 

[ihopehefails]

I can't find anywhere in the constitution that says that in order for a valid arrest to be made that someone has to read out some words known as miranda rights.

5th Amendment (Right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendment (Right to counsel).

The Miranda decision is admittedly not directly mandated by any language in the Constitution per se. The decision draws upon the two, quoted Amendments and implements them into the process of police interrogation.

Additionally, do not comb the Constitution looking for a reference to the Miranda case. Miranda was not alive when the Constitution was written . . .

If you are having difficulty understanding all this, let me put it another way which you may be better able to comprehend: The Constitutional limitations of Miranda implement a perverse, yet ever-changing factor of implicit wisdom. In spite of this, marginal regionalization of the decision has never caught into splinter-like ramifications of true trust on the part of the electorate.

Whether or not the defendant is read his rights or not does not actually mean he loses those rights. Everything you said still exist whether or not the defendant knows of them or not and its up to the defendant to speak up and assert himself. The police are under no obligation to inform him of his rights since it is their job to apprehend criminals and bring them to the court. The lawyers can then fight it out.

Not informing the defendant of his rights does not remove them from him since he still possesses them regardless. That is the point I was trying to make that not informing him of his rights doesn't negate them since he can still use them. Are we to assume that a lawyer who gets arrested and is not read his rights somehow forbade from using them? Do his procederial rights begin at the moment he is read them or at the moment they are inscribed in the constitution. I believe they exist in the constituion as procedures the police must follow and not when they magically are read from a card.

 

[George Costanza]

I can't find anywhere in the constitution that says that in order for a valid arrest to be made that someone has to read out some words known as miranda rights.

5th Amendment (Right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendment (Right to counsel).

The Miranda decision is admittedly not directly mandated by any language in the Constitution per se. The decision draws upon the two, quoted Amendments and implements them into the process of police interrogation.

Additionally, do not comb the Constitution looking for a reference to the Miranda case. Miranda was not alive when the Constitution was written . . .

If you are having difficulty understanding all this, let me put it another way which you may be better able to comprehend: The Constitutional limitations of Miranda implement a perverse, yet ever-changing factor of implicit wisdom. In spite of this, marginal regionalization of the decision has never caught into splinter-like ramifications of true trust on the part of the electorate.

Whether or not the defendant is read his rights or not does not actually mean he loses those rights. Everything you said still exist whether or not the defendant knows of them or not and its up to the defendant to speak up and assert himself. The police are under no obligation to inform him of his rights since it is their job to apprehend criminals and bring them to the court. The lawyers can then fight it out.

Not informing the defendant of his rights does not remove them from him since he still possesses them regardless. That is the point I was trying to make that not informing him of his rights doesn't negate them since he can still use them. Are we to assume that a lawyer who gets arrested and is not read his rights somehow forbade from using them? Do his procederial rights begin at the moment he is read them or at the moment they are inscribed in the constitution. I believe they exist in the constituion as procedures the police must follow and not when they magically are read from a card.

You are, of course, correct when you say that a suspect has his rights when he is arrested, whether they are read to him or not.

As a practical matter, however, if those rights are not read to him, many suspects do not know that they have them. That is precisely why Miranda was decided - to force the police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.

It is very important to note that police are not required to read a suspect his Miranda rights unless they intend to question him. Quite often, clients will tell me: "They never read me my rights." I always respond with: "Well, did they question you?" "No." Then it doesn't matter.

But getting back to your post - I think you are envisioning a situation where a suspect is arrested and the police start questioning him without advising him of his Miranda rights. In a situation such as that, yes - if the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, he can most certainly invoke those rights, even though he has not been advised of them. I will tell you that a suspect like that is pretty rare. And a situation like that is somewhat unusual - not totally, but somewhat. Police almost always give Miranda rights prior to questioning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

5th Amendment (Right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendment (Right to counsel).

The Miranda decision is admittedly not directly mandated by any language in the Constitution per se. The decision draws upon the two, quoted Amendments and implements them into the process of police interrogation.

Additionally, do not comb the Constitution looking for a reference to the Miranda case. Miranda was not alive when the Constitution was written . . .

If you are having difficulty understanding all this, let me put it another way which you may be better able to comprehend: The Constitutional limitations of Miranda implement a perverse, yet ever-changing factor of implicit wisdom. In spite of this, marginal regionalization of the decision has never caught into splinter-like ramifications of true trust on the part of the electorate.

Whether or not the defendant is read his rights or not does not actually mean he loses those rights. Everything you said still exist whether or not the defendant knows of them or not and its up to the defendant to speak up and assert himself. The police are under no obligation to inform him of his rights since it is their job to apprehend criminals and bring them to the court. The lawyers can then fight it out.

Not informing the defendant of his rights does not remove them from him since he still possesses them regardless. That is the point I was trying to make that not informing him of his rights doesn't negate them since he can still use them. Are we to assume that a lawyer who gets arrested and is not read his rights somehow forbade from using them? Do his procederial rights begin at the moment he is read them or at the moment they are inscribed in the constitution. I believe they exist in the constituion as procedures the police must follow and not when they magically are read from a card.

You are, of course, correct when you say that a suspect has his rights when he is arrested, whether they are read to him or not.

As a practical matter, however, if those rights are not read to him, many suspects do not know that they have them. That is precisely why Miranda was decided - to force the police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.

It is very important to note that police are not required to read a suspect his Miranda rights unless they intend to question him. Quite often, clients will tell me: "They never read me my rights." I always respond with: "Well, did they question you?" "No." Then it doesn't matter.

But getting back to your post - I think you are envisioning a situation where a suspect is arrested and the police start questioning him without advising him of his Miranda rights. In a situation such as that, yes - if the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, he can most certainly invoke those rights, even though he has not been advised of them. I will tell you that a suspect like that is pretty rare. And a situation like that is somewhat unusual - not totally, but somewhat. Police almost always give Miranda rights prior to questioning.

The way I see it, if one is going to go into a line of work, it is his responsibility to educate himself so as to efficiently and successfully do that job. If one wishes to be a carpenter, it is his responsibility to learn to use power tools. If one wishes to be a truck driver, it is his responsibility to learn to drive a semi. Likewise, if one chooses to be a criminal, then it is his responsibility to learn how to deal with police questioning. I have little sympathy for a carpenter who doesn't know a band saw from a circular saw, and I have little sympathy for a criminal who doesn't know his "Miranda" rights without being told. The really successful criminals, such as the Mafia, certainly know them ahead of time.

 

[Father Time]

Whether or not the defendant is read his rights or not does not actually mean he loses those rights. Everything you said still exist whether or not the defendant knows of them or not and its up to the defendant to speak up and assert himself. The police are under no obligation to inform him of his rights since it is their job to apprehend criminals and bring them to the court. The lawyers can then fight it out.

Not informing the defendant of his rights does not remove them from him since he still possesses them regardless. That is the point I was trying to make that not informing him of his rights doesn't negate them since he can still use them. Are we to assume that a lawyer who gets arrested and is not read his rights somehow forbade from using them? Do his procederial rights begin at the moment he is read them or at the moment they are inscribed in the constitution. I believe they exist in the constituion as procedures the police must follow and not when they magically are read from a card.

You are, of course, correct when you say that a suspect has his rights when he is arrested, whether they are read to him or not.

As a practical matter, however, if those rights are not read to him, many suspects do not know that they have them. That is precisely why Miranda was decided - to force the police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.

It is very important to note that police are not required to read a suspect his Miranda rights unless they intend to question him. Quite often, clients will tell me: "They never read me my rights." I always respond with: "Well, did they question you?" "No." Then it doesn't matter.

But getting back to your post - I think you are envisioning a situation where a suspect is arrested and the police start questioning him without advising him of his Miranda rights. In a situation such as that, yes - if the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, he can most certainly invoke those rights, even though he has not been advised of them. I will tell you that a suspect like that is pretty rare. And a situation like that is somewhat unusual - not totally, but somewhat. Police almost always give Miranda rights prior to questioning.

The way I see it, if one is going to go into a line of work, it is his responsibility to educate himself so as to efficiently and successfully do that job. If one wishes to be a carpenter, it is his responsibility to learn to use power tools. If one wishes to be a truck driver, it is his responsibility to learn to drive a semi. Likewise, if one chooses to be a criminal, then it is his responsibility to learn how to deal with police questioning. I have little sympathy for a carpenter who doesn't know a band saw from a circular saw, and I have little sympathy for a criminal who doesn't know his "Miranda" rights without being told. The really successful criminals, such as the Mafia, certainly know them ahead of time.

You assume that everyone the police arrest is all ready a criminal.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whether or not the defendant is read his rights or not does not actually mean he loses those rights. Everything you said still exist whether or not the defendant knows of them or not and its up to the defendant to speak up and assert himself. The police are under no obligation to inform him of his rights since it is their job to apprehend criminals and bring them to the court. The lawyers can then fight it out.

Not informing the defendant of his rights does not remove them from him since he still possesses them regardless. That is the point I was trying to make that not informing him of his rights doesn't negate them since he can still use them. Are we to assume that a lawyer who gets arrested and is not read his rights somehow forbade from using them? Do his procederial rights begin at the moment he is read them or at the moment they are inscribed in the constitution. I believe they exist in the constituion as procedures the police must follow and not when they magically are read from a card.

You are, of course, correct when you say that a suspect has his rights when he is arrested, whether they are read to him or not.

As a practical matter, however, if those rights are not read to him, many suspects do not know that they have them. That is precisely why Miranda was decided - to force the police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.

It is very important to note that police are not required to read a suspect his Miranda rights unless they intend to question him. Quite often, clients will tell me: "They never read me my rights." I always respond with: "Well, did they question you?" "No." Then it doesn't matter.

But getting back to your post - I think you are envisioning a situation where a suspect is arrested and the police start questioning him without advising him of his Miranda rights. In a situation such as that, yes - if the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, he can most certainly invoke those rights, even though he has not been advised of them. I will tell you that a suspect like that is pretty rare. And a situation like that is somewhat unusual - not totally, but somewhat. Police almost always give Miranda rights prior to questioning.

The way I see it, if one is going to go into a line of work, it is his responsibility to educate himself so as to efficiently and successfully do that job. If one wishes to be a carpenter, it is his responsibility to learn to use power tools. If one wishes to be a truck driver, it is his responsibility to learn to drive a semi. Likewise, if one chooses to be a criminal, then it is his responsibility to learn how to deal with police questioning. I have little sympathy for a carpenter who doesn't know a band saw from a circular saw, and I have little sympathy for a criminal who doesn't know his "Miranda" rights without being told. The really successful criminals, such as the Mafia, certainly know them ahead of time.

I believe that it may be better to state that as a citizen of this nation you should educate yourself on your rights, the rights of the government and its operation. It is a shame that so few actually know these things.

 

[George Costanza]

The way I see it, if one is going to go into a line of work, it is his responsibility to educate himself so as to efficiently and successfully do that job. If one wishes to be a carpenter, it is his responsibility to learn to use power tools. If one wishes to be a truck driver, it is his responsibility to learn to drive a semi. Likewise, if one chooses to be a criminal, then it is his responsibility to learn how to deal with police questioning. I have little sympathy for a carpenter who doesn't know a band saw from a circular saw, and I have little sympathy for a criminal who doesn't know his "Miranda" rights without being told. The really successful criminals, such as the Mafia, certainly know them ahead of time.

Bad analogy. I won't take up a lot of space with why it is a bad analogy, but beleive me, it's a bad one.

Very rarely does the reading or non-reading of Miranda rights play a part in a suspect's talking to the police. In the vast majority of cases, they talk. They talk for several reasons. First, they think they are going to talk their way out of the situation by explaining their side of it to the cops. Secondly. the police ENCOURAGE this line of logic, by promising to "help" them or "go to bat for them" if they do talk and, conversely, by threatening them with dire consequences if they don't talk - not torture, but rather increased sentences following conviction. Finally, there is a natural reaction on the part of most people to want to talk to others, especailly when they are in a kettle of fish and the other person (the detective) is also involved in it from the other end.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are, of course, correct when you say that a suspect has his rights when he is arrested, whether they are read to him or not.

As a practical matter, however, if those rights are not read to him, many suspects do not know that they have them. That is precisely why Miranda was decided - to force the police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.

It is very important to note that police are not required to read a suspect his Miranda rights unless they intend to question him. Quite often, clients will tell me: "They never read me my rights." I always respond with: "Well, did they question you?" "No." Then it doesn't matter.

But getting back to your post - I think you are envisioning a situation where a suspect is arrested and the police start questioning him without advising him of his Miranda rights. In a situation such as that, yes - if the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, he can most certainly invoke those rights, even though he has not been advised of them. I will tell you that a suspect like that is pretty rare. And a situation like that is somewhat unusual - not totally, but somewhat. Police almost always give Miranda rights prior to questioning.

The way I see it, if one is going to go into a line of work, it is his responsibility to educate himself so as to efficiently and successfully do that job. If one wishes to be a carpenter, it is his responsibility to learn to use power tools. If one wishes to be a truck driver, it is his responsibility to learn to drive a semi. Likewise, if one chooses to be a criminal, then it is his responsibility to learn how to deal with police questioning. I have little sympathy for a carpenter who doesn't know a band saw from a circular saw, and I have little sympathy for a criminal who doesn't know his "Miranda" rights without being told. The really successful criminals, such as the Mafia, certainly know them ahead of time.

You assume that everyone the police arrest is all ready a criminal.

Nope. But on the one hand, I tend not to think that the truly innocent have much to fear from law enforcement. On the other, I also think that citizenship falls under the same qualifications as I outlined above: Being a good citizen is YOUR job, and therefore it is YOUR responsibility to educate yourself so that you can do that job. And that means finding out for yourself what your rights are and what the laws are under which you live.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The way I see it, if one is going to go into a line of work, it is his responsibility to educate himself so as to efficiently and successfully do that job. If one wishes to be a carpenter, it is his responsibility to learn to use power tools. If one wishes to be a truck driver, it is his responsibility to learn to drive a semi. Likewise, if one chooses to be a criminal, then it is his responsibility to learn how to deal with police questioning. I have little sympathy for a carpenter who doesn't know a band saw from a circular saw, and I have little sympathy for a criminal who doesn't know his "Miranda" rights without being told. The really successful criminals, such as the Mafia, certainly know them ahead of time.

Bad analogy. I won't take up a lot of space with why it is a bad analogy, but beleive me, it's a bad one.

Very rarely does the reading or non-reading of Miranda rights play a part in a suspect's talking to the police. In the vast majority of cases, they talk. They talk for several reasons. First, they think they are going to talk their way out of the situation by explaining their side of it to the cops. Secondly. the police ENCOURAGE this line of logic, by promising to "help" them or "go to bat for them" if they do talk and, conversely, by threatening them with dire consequences if they don't talk - not torture, but rather increased sentences following conviction. Finally, there is a natural reaction on the part of most people to want to talk to others, especailly when they are in a kettle of fish and the other person (the detective) is also involved in it from the other end.

It is a stone fact that the number of cases solved by a confession went WAYYYY down after Miranda v. Arizona. So I'd say it DOES play a part in suspects talking to police. And frankly, if it DOESN'T make a difference, why are lawyers so hot about it?

 

[George Costanza]

It is a stone fact that the number of cases solved by a confession went WAYYYY down after Miranda v. Arizona.

Link, please.

So I'd say it DOES play a part in suspects talking to police. And frankly, if it DOESN'T make a difference, why are lawyers so hot about it?

Because no one should EVER talk to the police, whether they are advised or not about their right to remain silent. Anything that is done to detract from the Miranda decision is a step backwards. The police are not there to help you, once you have been arrested, in spite of their representations to the contrary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a stone fact that the number of cases solved by a confession went WAYYYY down after Miranda v. Arizona.

Link, please.

Would it surprise you to know that not everyone gets all their "information" from the Internet? Try picking up a book once in a while instead of forcing the literate world to coddle you.

Handcuffing the Cops: Miranda's Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

So I'd say it DOES play a part in suspects talking to police. And frankly, if it DOESN'T make a difference, why are lawyers so hot about it?

Because no one should EVER talk to the police, whether they are advised or not about their right to remain silent. Anything that is done to detract from the Miranda decision is a step backwards. The police are not there to help you, once you have been arrested, in spite of their representations to the contrary.

So it DOES, in fact, play a part. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[ihopehefails]

5th Amendment (Right against self incrimination) and 6th Amendment (Right to counsel).

The Miranda decision is admittedly not directly mandated by any language in the Constitution per se. The decision draws upon the two, quoted Amendments and implements them into the process of police interrogation.

Additionally, do not comb the Constitution looking for a reference to the Miranda case. Miranda was not alive when the Constitution was written . . .

If you are having difficulty understanding all this, let me put it another way which you may be better able to comprehend: The Constitutional limitations of Miranda implement a perverse, yet ever-changing factor of implicit wisdom. In spite of this, marginal regionalization of the decision has never caught into splinter-like ramifications of true trust on the part of the electorate.

Whether or not the defendant is read his rights or not does not actually mean he loses those rights. Everything you said still exist whether or not the defendant knows of them or not and its up to the defendant to speak up and assert himself. The police are under no obligation to inform him of his rights since it is their job to apprehend criminals and bring them to the court. The lawyers can then fight it out.

Not informing the defendant of his rights does not remove them from him since he still possesses them regardless. That is the point I was trying to make that not informing him of his rights doesn't negate them since he can still use them. Are we to assume that a lawyer who gets arrested and is not read his rights somehow forbade from using them? Do his procederial rights begin at the moment he is read them or at the moment they are inscribed in the constitution. I believe they exist in the constituion as procedures the police must follow and not when they magically are read from a card.

You are, of course, correct when you say that a suspect has his rights when he is arrested, whether they are read to him or not.

As a practical matter, however, if those rights are not read to him, many suspects do not know that they have them. That is precisely why Miranda was decided - to force the police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.

It is very important to note that police are not required to read a suspect his Miranda rights unless they intend to question him. Quite often, clients will tell me: "They never read me my rights." I always respond with: "Well, did they question you?" "No." Then it doesn't matter.

But getting back to your post - I think you are envisioning a situation where a suspect is arrested and the police start questioning him without advising him of his Miranda rights. In a situation such as that, yes - if the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, he can most certainly invoke those rights, even though he has not been advised of them. I will tell you that a suspect like that is pretty rare. And a situation like that is somewhat unusual - not totally, but somewhat. Police almost always give Miranda rights prior to questioning.

I believe it is a waste of time for the police to do so because they should know what is the correct procedure is when doing something. Whether or not they fail to inform them of their rights they are still obligated to follow whatever procedures that they are suppose to do regardless...

I know their is a practicable matter about the defendant being aware of their rights but its not the police fault if the defendent is unaware.

 

[George Costanza]

I believe it is a waste of time for the police to do so because they should know what is the correct procedure is when doing something. Whether or not they fail to inform them of their rights they are still obligated to follow whatever procedures that they are suppose to do regardless...

I know their is a practicable matter about the defendant being aware of their rights but its not the police fault if the defendant is unaware.

The law feels that, in a confrontation between an arrested suspect and the police, the police have such an overwhelming advantage, that the suspect needs a significant amount of protection from police overreaching.

That's right - police overreaching. It happens. Believe me, it happens.

That's the basic motivation behind the Miranda decision.