US Attorney General Urges Repeal of Miranda Warning

[lawbuff]

Cecilie, police custody is not the same as arrest. The grounds for detaining a person for questioning are lower than the grounds for arrest. If grounds for detention exist, most jurisdictions can hold you for up to 24 hours without issuing an arrest warrant

If I may my friend, jailhouse detention for questioning on less than probable cause is UNconstitutional, there is no such thing as "investigative detention" in the U.S., see Dunaway v. New York, 1979, USSC.

*Curtseys*

Thankies for the correction, lawbuff.

Thank you for the nice post.

 

[lawbuff]

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".

If you are speaking of the "Automobile Exception" to a warrantless search, I agree, however there are a few areas of a "limited search" which do NOT require PC, see Michigan v. Long for one, fact specific of course.

If an officer notices a detainee making a "furtive gesture" before or during approach of the vehicle, it "may" rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to check the immediate reach area/lunge area for a weapon.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".

If you are speaking of the "Automobile Exception" to a warrantless search, I agree, however there are a few areas of a "limited search" which do NOT require PC, see Michigan v. Long for one, fact specific of course.

If an officer notices a detainee making a "furtive gesture" before or during approach of the vehicle, it "may" rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to check the immediate reach area/lunge area for a weapon.

Precisely the point I was trying to make...thank you lawbuff

 

[lawbuff]

Any decent lawyer could get your uncle off based on the fact that he wasn't mirandized after the cops found the weed.

I disagree. Post Mirandizing a subject is not grounds to void an arrest/detention, no such Jurisprudence exists.

Even Pre mirandizing a subject before roadside interrogation is not required as such is NOT "Custodial" for purposes of Miranda, at least under the federal Constitution, a state may, but very doubtfully, afford more protection.

 

[lawbuff]

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".

If you are speaking of the "Automobile Exception" to a warrantless search, I agree, however there are a few areas of a "limited search" which do NOT require PC, see Michigan v. Long for one, fact specific of course.

If an officer notices a detainee making a "furtive gesture" before or during approach of the vehicle, it "may" rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to check the immediate reach area/lunge area for a weapon.

Precisely the point I was trying to make...thank you lawbuff

You are welcome, of course!!

 

[Madeline]

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".

Okay. My nitwit uncle is in his 70's and has never been in trouble with the law. He and my nitwit son are driving together and my nitwit son has a baggie of weed in his luggage, which is in the trunk. The cops pull over the vehicle while my uncle is driving.

Educated, charming and law abiding, my uncle has ZERO experience with law enforcement. If asked for his consent to search, my uncle gives it, 10 out of 10 times. When the cops find the weed, my uncle, who is a jeweler by trade, is unaware that he is as guilty of possession as my nitwit son is. Trying to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, he urps up all sorts of incriminating statements against his own interest.

It is contrary to human experience to resist law enforcement for those of us who are law abiding. In general, the only folks savvy enough to act on their rights, apart from lawyers, are experienced criminals.

Miranda is needed and should remain.

Any decent lawyer could get your uncle off based on the fact that he wasn't mirandized after the cops found the weed.

BINGO!

But if Miranda is repealed, that remedy will no longer be available. I find Holder's "Let's reduce the rights of everyday Americans" solutions to problems rather annoying on account of this.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Any decent lawyer could get your uncle off based on the fact that he wasn't mirandized after the cops found the weed.

I disagree. Post Mirandizing a subject is not grounds to void an arrest/detention, no such Jurisprudence exists.

Even Pre mirandizing a subject before roadside interrogation is not required as such is NOT "Custodial" for purposes of Miranda, at least under the federal Constitution, a state may, but very doubtfully, afford more protection.

Like I said...." a decent lawyer..."
We weren't discussing the marijuana violation...we discussing the Uncle's incriminating rantings.....
but a decent lawyer can get anyone out of just about anything given enough time and money....example: Alexis Neiers...Bling Ring burglar

 

[Madeline]

Are you discussing Holder's desire to forego mirandizing terror suspects including U.S. citizens or the potential for abuse on the general populace at some point.

Holder uses terrorists as the fulcrum to lever my basic rights off, but he wants us ALL to lose them. I think mebbe he just thinks our right to trial by jury is a pain in the ass too. Mebbe we could just take a page outta the Fidel Castro Guide to Easy Administration of Something Like Justice and give the needle to the defendant right dere in the courtroom?

Saves on transport costs; bodies go directly to the morgue.

 

[lawbuff]

Like I said...." a decent lawyer..."
We weren't discussing the marijuana violation...we discussing the Uncle's incriminating rantings.....
but a decent lawyer can get anyone out of just about anything given enough time and money....example: Alexis Neiers...Bling Ring burglar

As one Justice stated in an opinion, one would not think that something as facially straight forward as Miranda could provide so much case law.

This was my contention, the questioning of a roadside motorist is not custodial for purposes of Miranda, see 2. of the Syllabus, see what you think.

BERKEMER V. MCCARTY, 468 U. S. 420 :: Volume 468 :: 1984 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez


It would be very wise to do so after finding the weed, but unless the inculpatory statements are seperate from the discovery, they are not needed to seal a case anyway even if Berkermer did not apply?