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

[George Costanza]

How's this for proof that Miranda is effective? I am in the process of opening a new case. The police report contains the following:

"I handcuffed and detained both suspects in the back seat of my vehicle pending further investigation." (A clear detention, i.e., Miranda must be given from this point forward if any questioning is done.)

"I asked S/Valencia what happened." (Note: No Miranda warning given.) "He told me he and a whole bunch of other guys beat up V/Aguirre." (A flat out confession to the assault charge.)

"I advised S/Valencia of his Miranda rights and asked if he would like to speak to me about the assault. He said 'No.'"

Read that one over a couple of times so you can get a full handle on what is happening here. Without Miranda, the guy confesses. The cop, realizing he just got a worthless confession, now Mirandizes the suspect (Valencia) and, guess what? After having been advised, he clams up.

Seems to me that, sometimes, suspects listen to the wording of the Miranda warning and actually make a conscious decision that, hey, maybe it IS better for me if I don't say anything.

I guess you could call that "effective" if the effect you're looking for is to make criminals clam up. Not being a sleazeball defense lawyer, I don't really have that as my goal.

Lighten up, Francis . . .

 

[FA_Q2]

I expect lots of the defendants to lie. I am intolerant of cops lying. They are supposed to be different and should be held to a higher standard.

More than that they should be prosecuted for it at a higher penalty. I have a particular aversion to abuse of power and believe that people in such positions should be accountable for their actions. I know that I am because I am military. Being a cop and lying could get many people wrongfully imprisoned.

 

[lawbuff]

The standard in NY State for whether a person is "in custody" for purposes of the Miranda requirement is the Yukl test. People v. Yukl, 25 NY2d 585. That is, what would the reasonable person feel with regard to his liberty of movement if he were in the defendant's exact position but innocent of any crime? If the "reasonable" person would not necessarily feel that he was being arrested or that his freedom to leave had been taken away from him, then it's not "custody" and if there's no custody, then there's no Miranda requirement.

This was a pre Mendenhall case, but this is essentially the 4th AM "Mendenhall test"; Mendenhall v. United States, 1980.

"We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. [n6] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16;

 

[lawbuff]

You have to disagree with me on which point - that you are not free to leave during an investigative detention, or that you are entitled to a Miranda warning during a custodial interrogation?

I suspect it is the latter.

I will read the Berkemer case. I suspect it involves an exception to the Miranda rule. Back after I have had the time to go into it.

Edit Note: What the hell - I'd rather play than work. So I read it. As I suspected, this is an exception to Miranda in the case of vehicle stops. Vehicle stops are typically brief, with the decision to arrest or not arrest typically being made within a matter of minutes. As such, The Supremes have held that no Miranda warning is required, even though the motorist is being temporarily detained.

We see this in actual practice most commonly in the DUI cases, where the suspect is questioned at length by the officer without any Miranda warning prior to arrest. The suspect in a DUI case is clearly being detained - usually an FST (Field Sobriety Test) is administered, all without any Miranda warning and, of course, the suspect typeically sings like a bird throughout.

This is not the same situation as one where the officer comes upon a suspected crime in progress or just having been committed, and detains a suspect for preliminary investigation. Here, if the officer feels he has enough to detain, and does in fact do so, then Miranda is required. I think the difference has to do with the basic difference between a detention of that nature (potentially much more seious consequences and typically longer than a vehicle stop) and the type of detention typical of a vehicle stop.

Good catch, though. Very astute of you to spot it.

Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 1988, deals with DUI's, and the SC ruled Berkermer governs.

 

[George Costanza]

The standard in NY State for whether a person is "in custody" for purposes of the Miranda requirement is the Yukl test. People v. Yukl, 25 NY2d 585. That is, what would the reasonable person feel with regard to his liberty of movement if he were in the defendant's exact position but innocent of any crime? If the "reasonable" person would not necessarily feel that he was being arrested or that his freedom to leave had been taken away from him, then it's not "custody" and if there's no custody, then there's no Miranda requirement.

This was a pre Mendenhall case, but this is essentially the 4th AM "Mendenhall test"; Mendenhall v. United States, 1980.

"We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. [n6] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16;

Note that the "not free to leave" test is NOT relevant in testing the custodial status of a suspect for purposes of Miranda. With Miranda, the test is whether or not "the suspect's freedom of movement has been restricted in any significant manner." Also, the test is an objective one, not subjective.

 

[lawbuff]

Note that the "not free to leave" test is NOT relevant in testing the custodial status of a suspect for purposes of Miranda. With Miranda, the test is whether or not "the suspect's freedom of movement has been restricted in any significant manner." Also, the test is an objective one, not subjective.

Aren't "seized" and "in custody" interchangeable?

If you are seized per Mendenhall, you are in custody.

 

[Liability]

Note that the "not free to leave" test is NOT relevant in testing the custodial status of a suspect for purposes of Miranda. With Miranda, the test is whether or not "the suspect's freedom of movement has been restricted in any significant manner." Also, the test is an objective one, not subjective.

Aren't "seized" and "in custody" interchangeable?

If you are seized per Mendenhall, you are in custody.

Not in NY.

 

[lawbuff]

Note that the "not free to leave" test is NOT relevant in testing the custodial status of a suspect for purposes of Miranda. With Miranda, the test is whether or not "the suspect's freedom of movement has been restricted in any significant manner." Also, the test is an objective one, not subjective.

Aren't "seized" and "in custody" interchangeable?

If you are seized per Mendenhall, you are in custody.

Not in NY.

The difference being??

If you are placed in the back of a police car, you are both seized and in custody? Agree?

I do not understand the difference in the two as far as Mirandizing a suspect if the need arises!!

You do not = the case you cited with Mendenhall??

 

[Liability]

Aren't "seized" and "in custody" interchangeable?

If you are seized per Mendenhall, you are in custody.

Not in NY.

The difference being??

If you are placed in the back of a police car, you are both seized and in custody? Agree?

I do not understand the difference in the two as far as Mirandizing a suspect if the need arises!!

You do not = the case you cited with Mendenhall??

I did not cite Mendenhall.

I simply (and correctly) noted that, under the Yukl analysis, in NY, a person can be detained (in some cases, in fact, that includes going so far as handcuffing the person being detained!) and yet the Court will NOT necessarily find that the person was under arrest for purposes of the application of Miranda rights.

You attempted to bring Mendenhall into the discussion. I didn't. And I see no purpose in going there. It is sufficient to know that in NY, the Yukl test is still good law.

 

[lawbuff]

Not in NY.

The difference being??

If you are placed in the back of a police car, you are both seized and in custody? Agree?

I do not understand the difference in the two as far as Mirandizing a suspect if the need arises!!

You do not = the case you cited with Mendenhall??

I did not cite Mendenhall.

I simply (and correctly) noted that, under the Yukl analysis, in NY, a person can be detained (in some cases, in fact, that includes going so far as handcuffing the person being detained!) and yet the Court will NOT necessarily find that the person was under arrest for purposes of the application of Miranda rights.

You attempted to bring Mendenhall into the discussion. I didn't. And I see no purpose in going there. It is sufficient to know that in NY, the Yukl test is still good law.

The purpose in going there is, Mendenhall is a "seizure" test under the federal constitution. Miranda is a SC decision under the federal constitution, on "custody" warnings, they overlap as far I am interpret them.

 

[Liability]

The difference being??

If you are placed in the back of a police car, you are both seized and in custody? Agree?

I do not understand the difference in the two as far as Mirandizing a suspect if the need arises!!

You do not = the case you cited with Mendenhall??

I did not cite Mendenhall.

I simply (and correctly) noted that, under the Yukl analysis, in NY, a person can be detained (in some cases, in fact, that includes going so far as handcuffing the person being detained!) and yet the Court will NOT necessarily find that the person was under arrest for purposes of the application of Miranda rights.

You attempted to bring Mendenhall into the discussion. I didn't. And I see no purpose in going there. It is sufficient to know that in NY, the Yukl test is still good law.

The purpose in going there is, Mendenhall is a "seizure" test under the federal constitution. Miranda is a SC decision under the federal constitution, on "custody" warnings, they overlap as far I am interpret them.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like.

And yet, under the law in the State of NY, the Yukl test still applies.

 

[Intense]

The inclusion of the condition for the hypothetical person in the defendant's position that the hypothetical person be "innocent of any crime" is pretty interesting. A hypothetical person in exactly the defendant's position who also happens to be a person with a guilty mind would tilt the table toward the defendant. Anybody having something to hide might feel that he was no longer free to leave (the guilty conscience syndrome).

But since the Court is trying to analyze whether the police conduct constituted an arrest (or its equivalent), the question is better seen through the eyes of a person in the defendant's very same position IF that person didn't already have that guilty conscience syndrome thing going on. (The Court is pretty much saying, in effect, "if we presume a defendant innocent, then why not judge whether he would have felt he was under arrest by the standard OF an innocent man?")

I had a customer. This dirt bag was a retired Police Captain, Internal Affairs, under Mayor Guiliani. Real dirt bag. Brought me into his home under false pretenses to do a repair. I couldn't help him, had he been honest and up front it would have been handled over the phone, at no cost to him. About a month later the turd tried to scam me out of what he had paid me. He threatened, he bullied, he had connections at the Nassau County Court house. Real Scum Bag. I knew I had right on my side, so I told him to take his best shot. I never heard from the prick again. I wonder how many lives he screwed up doing his job, how many innocents he coerced into either doing his bidding, or admitting to doing things they didn't do, for fear of his threats and intimidation.

There are innocent people in prison guy's. Sometimes it's about perspective, bad council, or investigators not wanting to go to the next level. It's real easy to come to conclusions and misjudge.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I had a client accused of having a gun in his car allegedly visible from outside the car. That particular claim was bullshit for a couple of very good reasons. The trial was a bear. But in the end, the fact that the cops had lied was brought out pretty forcefully. Even in a suburban county with lots of upper middle class to upper class largely white jurors, the cops couldn't get over on them.

If you're suggesting that our system of justice doesn't always end up with justice getting accomplished, I do not disagree with you. Cops sometimes do lie. Jurors sometimes do get it wrong. Judges are often far from judicial or learned in the law. Lawyers aren't all detail oriented hardworking and bound and determined to obtain justice for their innocent clients. Investigators often pay lip service to their jobs too. Yet despite it all, I have yet to observe (or even hear of) any system that's better.

The answer to the fact that the system is not "perfect," though, is not to stymie good cops by imposing absurd obligations on them. I have NO problem with a suspect clamming up. I wish all my clients nowadays were that bright. But if the cops manage (without improper methods like threats of violence or threats of improper consequences) to get some dumbass talking, and that chatter results in getting the dumbass arrested or convicted, I'm ok with that too. In my experience MOST (not all, but most) people arrested by the cops are actually guilty of the charges (or at least guilty on some lower level). I am not disturbed by the prospect that a guilty asshole speaking too much might get himself in trouble, provided the cops have played by the rules.

I expect lots of the defendants to lie. I am intolerant of cops lying. They are supposed to be different and should be held to a higher standard.

For not understanding the point you nailed it pretty well. It is always nice when justice takes precedent over agenda, or preconceived notion. I'll take or system over any other, too.
Just consider like in an issue of self defense, after or during an attack. Allot of questions, mitigating circumstances, history, that really do make it better to back away from questioning, rather than incriminate, before the charged has spoken to council. The same may hold true for an accident. You have evidence to process, witness statements. Maybe a 17 year old charged with something spontaneous. Where is the benefit of the doubt??? I'm specifically referring to non-premeditated actions here, in the examples. If Someone wants to talk, let them, with fair warning. Cop's lying in interrogation, misrepresenting the facts, is bad practice. Maybe it contributes to an innocent getting set up and railroaded. I've known many cop's in my life, most good, but not all.

 

[Liability]

I had a customer. This dirt bag was a retired Police Captain, Internal Affairs, under Mayor Guiliani. Real dirt bag. Brought me into his home under false pretenses to do a repair. I couldn't help him, had he been honest and up front it would have been handled over the phone, at no cost to him. About a month later the turd tried to scam me out of what he had paid me. He threatened, he bullied, he had connections at the Nassau County Court house. Real Scum Bag. I knew I had right on my side, so I told him to take his best shot. I never heard from the prick again. I wonder how many lives he screwed up doing his job, how many innocents he coerced into either doing his bidding, or admitting to doing things they didn't do, for fear of his threats and intimidation.

There are innocent people in prison guy's. Sometimes it's about perspective, bad council, or investigators not wanting to go to the next level. It's real easy to come to conclusions and misjudge.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I had a client accused of having a gun in his car allegedly visible from outside the car. That particular claim was bullshit for a couple of very good reasons. The trial was a bear. But in the end, the fact that the cops had lied was brought out pretty forcefully. Even in a suburban county with lots of upper middle class to upper class largely white jurors, the cops couldn't get over on them.

If you're suggesting that our system of justice doesn't always end up with justice getting accomplished, I do not disagree with you. Cops sometimes do lie. Jurors sometimes do get it wrong. Judges are often far from judicial or learned in the law. Lawyers aren't all detail oriented hardworking and bound and determined to obtain justice for their innocent clients. Investigators often pay lip service to their jobs too. Yet despite it all, I have yet to observe (or even hear of) any system that's better.

The answer to the fact that the system is not "perfect," though, is not to stymie good cops by imposing absurd obligations on them. I have NO problem with a suspect clamming up. I wish all my clients nowadays were that bright. But if the cops manage (without improper methods like threats of violence or threats of improper consequences) to get some dumbass talking, and that chatter results in getting the dumbass arrested or convicted, I'm ok with that too. In my experience MOST (not all, but most) people arrested by the cops are actually guilty of the charges (or at least guilty on some lower level). I am not disturbed by the prospect that a guilty asshole speaking too much might get himself in trouble, provided the cops have played by the rules.

I expect lots of the defendants to lie. I am intolerant of cops lying. They are supposed to be different and should be held to a higher standard.

For not understanding the point you nailed it pretty well. It is always nice when justice takes precedent over agenda, or preconceived notion. I'll take or system over any other, too.
Just consider like in an issue of self defense, after or during an attack. Allot of questions, mitigating circumstances, history, that really do make it better to back away from questioning, rather than incriminate, before the charged has spoken to council. The same may hold true for an accident. You have evidence to process, witness statements. Maybe a 17 year old charged with something spontaneous. Where is the benefit of the doubt??? I'm specifically referring to non-premeditated actions here, in the examples. If Someone wants to talk, let them, with fair warning. Cop's lying in interrogation, misrepresenting the facts, is bad practice. Maybe it contributes to an innocent getting set up and railroaded. I've known many cop's in my life, most good, but not all.

Well, I guess then that we are probably in some form of agreement.

SOME cops lie. IF a person gets convicted of a crime he didn't commit because a cop has lied or a because a prosecutor has suppressed evidence or because a lazy lawyer failed to provide an available effective defense or a jury just didn't give a crap, then justice has not been achieved. Our system is supposed to root precisely those things OUT. IT isn't perfect.

I agree, by the way, that most cops are honest. I think most prosecutors actually DO give a damn about seeking justice. Judges by and large are fairly knowledgeable on the law (some more so than others) and in most cases try to be impartial. Jurors do try to be fair and open minded. Lawyers do try to present the most credible and legally viable defense they can come up with under any given fact pattern.

The imperfections that clearly remain in the system despite all of that are likely never going to be fully removed. We've all heard "IF men were angels ...." But we aren't. So some imperfections will remain and justice will not always be obtained. In the interim, we do what we can do and try to always do better.

I do not believe that the Miranda decision helps in that regard. As long as it IS the law, however, cops should honor it. I believe most do.

 

[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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The fifth amendment to the constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Naturally, there is no specific mention of the Miranda but then again there is no specific mention to the right to privacy, an air force, schools, libraries or a million other faucets of today's society. Nonetheless, Miranda is law based off of the constitution, like all law is supposed to be. This point has been addressed here many times.
You could also state that it is covered in article 1, section 7 where the process for making laws is. Miranda IS a law, was passed in the proper way and is now enforceable.

 

[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."

And exactly WHO demanded these limits be made? WHY it was Holder that did that. Where is the outrage at the Liberals running the Government for demanding these limits be made, forcing it to the SUpreme Court and then successfully arguing the case? Obama is to blame.

 

[ConHog]

I got a good chuckle out of this thread

 

[FA_Q2]

care to explain?

 

[Liability]

care to explain?

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

 

[ConHog]

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