Good read. Thanks for posting it.
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/po...s/Miranda1.pdf Brief (for covering such a subject) instruction aimed at cop-on-the-street to know not when Miranda warning is needed but when it is not.
It notes, among other tings, that just because you have been seized (when considering 4th Amendment issues) there is not always a requirement for you to receive a Miranda warning before you are questioned. It's really not that hard to understand, but it does make you want to cuss and bang your head on a brick wall.
Among other things it gives insight into handcuffing "for officer safety" - they say that's not custodial. Also goes over several situations where "You are free to leave" may not in fact be true and thus require a Miranda warning.
As the authors note, life is not TV and not every time the cops ask you questions requires you be given a Miranda warning.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
Good read. Thanks for posting it.
Good post, Skid. Got an open spot on that brick wall for me to bang my head, too?
That write-up is not so much a statement of law, as it is an indictment of government. First the government makes hairs, then it splits them. Then it splits the splits.
One could argue that Miranda is proof of government protecting rights. Nuh-uh. Miranda is proof of courts ensuring they have future business in the hair-splitting line. And, more importantly, proof they wanted to maintain the government's wedge against the right to not accuse oneself--that it is a fighting right, one available only if you know about it, have the stoutness of heart to use it, and do use it. Also, how little protection they intended is shown by how often they split hairs in favor of government, rather than split hairs in favor of freedom.
For new readers, I will provide an example for comparison. There is a book. The Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination. By Leonard Levy. It won the Pulitzer Prize back around 1970 or so. It chronicles the development of the right starting from the late 1100's in King Henry (IV?)'s England. Great book. It is still in print in paperback. Very, very well worth the price. You come away with a deep appreciation of what it cost to obtain the right. In the appendix he gives the example I promised. For comparison. In ancient Hebrew law the accused's confession could not be used against him. There was no arguing over whether he was Mirandized. No debate whether he was custodially questioned. No discussion about coerciveness of the circumstances. It was just plain-and-simple out of bounds. That is an example of government protecting rights.
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.
If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?
There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.
As always when you get lawyers involved with anything you get this expected result: nobody knows what the heck is going on. lol
Here's what I tell cops: "hey your the detective, figure it out out without me or pay me a salary"