Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: SCOTUS might make Miranda more explicit

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/..._court_miranda

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.
    The arguments in front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have a lawyer present while being interrogated by police.
    Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
    The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.
    Joseph W. Jacquot, Florida deputy attorney general, argued that the warning given Powell "expresses all the rights required under Miranda."
    Justice Stephen Breyer clearly disagreed.
    "Aren't you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?" Breyer said. "I mean, it isn't as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"
    Different courts have came down on different sides on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
    "We've got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn't that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can't reasonably convey, if there's this many courts holding that it doesn't?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
    Powell's lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said that the warning Powell was given from Tampa, Fla., police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."
    Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer's argument "angels dancing on the head of a pin."
    "You are saying, 'Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'" Scalia said. "I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?"
    Miranda rights have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. But those requirements likely will continue to be parsed by lawyers and judges.
    For example, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that most police start off Miranda rights by saying "You have the right to remain silent." But, Alito said, what happens if someone begins talking to the police and then decides that they want to be silent?
    "Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence," Alito said.
    "We could write that down. It could be the next case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to laughter.
    This is the third Miranda case the court has heard this year. The justices heard arguments earlier over whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights but didn't invoke them, and whether a request for a lawyer during interrogation can expire after a lengthy period of time.
    Decisions in all three cases are expected next year.
    The case argued Monday is Florida v. Powell, 08-1175.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Dang, beat me to posting this.

    Sigh, so weak.

    We need the ultimate Miranda, like the ultimate Second Amendment:

    "If you want to be free; Do not speak. Do not make a sound. Do not write anything. Do not use sign language. Do not tap or blink Morse code. Do not gesture. By not doing all of these things, we will safely assume you want a lawyer, and we will then ask for their name and number. If you do not answer, we will get one for you. Other than giving the lawyer's name and number, you should not communicate in any way with us. These are your rights as a human being."

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Dang, beat me to posting this.

    Sigh, so weak.

    We need the ultimate Miranda, like the ultimate Second Amendment:

    "If you want to be free; Do not speak. Do not make a sound. Do not write anything. Do not use sign language. Do not tap or blink Morse code. Do not gesture. By not doing all of these things, we will safely assume you want a lawyer, and we will then ask for their name and number. If you do not answer, we will get one for you. Other than giving the lawyer's name and number, you should not communicate in any way with us. These are your rights as a human being."
    This.



  4. #4
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection.

    I'm confused as to what is illegal about that. I'm from VA not FL.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  5. #5
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Without commenting on the nature of the crime, I firmly believe this will be overturned by the SCOTUS. The admonishment given has been the standard text for decades. Over the last several years, SCOTUS has actually been curtailing Miranda, not expanding it.

    I am not debating with anyone here over the nature of the Miranda warning. I am simply giving my observations on the courts handling of Miranda in recent years.

  6. #6
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    Without commenting on the nature of the crime, I firmly believe this will be overturned by the SCOTUS. The admonishment given has been the standard text for decades. Over the last several years, SCOTUS has actually been curtailing Miranda, not expanding it.

    I am not debating with anyone here over the nature of the Miranda warning. I am simply giving my observations on the courts handling of Miranda in recent years.
    Maybe the tide is a turning and libertarian views will start prevailing!

    (Hey I can dream)
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    I certainly believe that every citizen is entitled to exercise his rights.

    However, I'm not thrilled with forcing police officers to essentially tell criminals, "Shut up and don't confess to this horrible crime."

    If a mentally competent adult is too stupid or ignorant to know his rights, or too arrogant to exercise them, then I don't see why my tax money should be spent persuading him to make it more difficult to convict him for whatever he has done.

    Yes, I know. Sometimes OCers get harassed by cops. Sometimes good guys have to use force in self-defense and they need to avoid being convicted of a crime. And we have lots of oppressive laws on the books.

    But if some punk gang banger wants to brag about how bad he is, I think the cops ought to be free to sit back and listen with a tape recorder running.

    At most, a simple statement that you are being placed under arrest (or detained) and that you may exercise your rights--without explicitly listing every right you have--should be adequate. Indeed, I'd happily trade the explicit Miranda warnings before questioning for a general "You are being detained and may exercise your rights" being required for any and all detentions including traffic stops and "man with a gun" calls.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    I certainly believe that every citizen is entitled to exercise his rights.

    However, I'm not thrilled with forcing police officers to essentially tell criminals, "Shut up and don't confess to this horrible crime."

    If a mentally competent adult is too stupid or ignorant to know his rights, or too arrogant to exercise them, then I don't see why my tax money should be spent persuading him to make it more difficult to convict him for whatever he has done.

    Yes, I know. Sometimes OCers get harassed by cops. Sometimes good guys have to use force in self-defense and they need to avoid being convicted of a crime. And we have lots of oppressive laws on the books.

    But if some punk gang banger wants to brag about how bad he is, I think the cops ought to be free to sit back and listen with a tape recorder running.

    At most, a simple statement that you are being placed under arrest (or detained) and that you may exercise your rights--without explicitly listing every right you have--should be adequate. Indeed, I'd happily trade the explicit Miranda warnings before questioning for a general "You are being detained and may exercise your rights" being required for any and all detentions including traffic stops and "man with a gun" calls.

    Charles
    I'd agree if their wasn't such a large scale effort through gov't and media to keep you ignorant and mislead you about your rights.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection.

    I'm confused as to what is illegal about that. I'm from VA not FL.
    "Illegally possessing" could mean that he's a prohibited person, or that his manner of carry was illegal. I doubt the sale itself was illegal (except for him possibly being a prohibited person).

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    I certainly believe that every citizen is entitled to exercise his rights.

    However, I'm not thrilled with forcing police officers to essentially tell criminals, "Shut up and don't confess to this horrible crime."

    If a mentally competent adult is too stupid or ignorant to know his rights, or too arrogant to exercise them, then I don't see why my tax money should be spent persuading him to make it more difficult to convict him for whatever he has done.

    Yes, I know. Sometimes OCers get harassed by cops. Sometimes good guys have to use force in self-defense and they need to avoid being convicted of a crime. And we have lots of oppressive laws on the books.

    But if some punk gang banger wants to brag about how bad he is, I think the cops ought to be free to sit back and listen with a tape recorder running.

    At most, a simple statement that you are being placed under arrest (or detained) and that you may exercise your rights--without explicitly listing every right you have--should be adequate. Indeed, I'd happily trade the explicit Miranda warnings before questioning for a general "You are being detained and may exercise your rights" being required for any and all detentions including traffic stops and "man with a gun" calls.

    Charles
    I'd agree if their wasn't such a large scale effort through gov't and media to keep you ignorant and mislead you about your rights.
    Exactly. Even what we know to be rights are trampled constantly, but if even the most fundamental ones are not made unequivocally clear in ANY arena, such as being able to shut up and lawyer up from the outset? Our legal system may as well dissolve into anarchy. Do NOT trust cops to answer "what are my rights?" truthfully, or with your best interests legally and ethically required to be in mind.

    And the bragging thing is a red herring. If they're so excited to utter a confession before the police can even get a Miranda in edgewise, that's admissible. FRE Rule 803.2.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    I certainly believe that every citizen is entitled to exercise his rights.

    However, I'm not thrilled with forcing police officers to essentially tell criminals, "Shut up and don't confess to this horrible crime."

    If a mentally competent adult is too stupid or ignorant to know his rights, or too arrogant to exercise them, then I don't see why my tax money should be spent persuading him to make it more difficult to convict him for whatever he has done.

    Yes, I know. Sometimes OCers get harassed by cops. Sometimes good guys have to use force in self-defense and they need to avoid being convicted of a crime. And we have lots of oppressive laws on the books.

    But if some punk gang banger wants to brag about how bad he is, I think the cops ought to be free to sit back and listen with a tape recorder running.

    At most, a simple statement that you are being placed under arrest (or detained) and that you may exercise your rights--without explicitly listing every right you have--should be adequate. Indeed, I'd happily trade the explicit Miranda warnings before questioning for a general "You are being detained and may exercise your rights" being required for any and all detentions including traffic stops and "man with a gun" calls.

    Charles
    Well Charles, let me take a wild guess and say that you have never been arrestedunder suspicion of a crime.

    You may understand this a little better when you are totally innocent of the crime you are being accused of committing. There are countless people that have been arrested, prosecuted, and even executed that were totally innocent of what they were being accused of.

    Many of these cases were becuase the arrested person did not **** when arrested and interrogated. What they thought they were saying to the investigators was going to exonerate them, and it got twisted around and used against them instead becuase they did not have proper representation.

    I hope you are never arrested by mistake, but if that is what it takes for you to see the other side of the situation, and what Miranda actually protects an innocent person from, so be it.
    Just remember, DO NOT SAY A FRIGGIN WORD UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPETENT LEGAL REPRESENTATION! Your life may just depend on it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    You all ought to read "Criminal Interrogation and Confession" by Inbau and Reid. It is fascinating reading.

    I myself have been mirandized twice, both times because I fit the description of a suspect. Both times I talked freely and truthfully and walked away. One one occasion I was asked to give a handwriting sample, which I did. That was twelve years ago and nothing ever came of it. Of course I have mirandized and interviewed subjects myself so I know all the tricks.

    BTW Ernesto Miranda's conviction (for forcible rape and you should read what he wrote: "Tied hands without force and with co-operation...." etc . Exculpatory statements can be very inculpatory... In any event the conviction was thrown out but he was retried without the coerced confession and went to the slammer anyway.

    However, a Montgomery County MD cop told a magazine interviewer that he went to get a part-time job selling used cars. When the dealer told him that he didn't think the detective would mke a good salesman, the detective said:

    "Every day I take people who don't want to talk to me into a room, where I tell them they don't have to talk to me. THEN I tell them that if they DO talk to me, I will use whatever they say to put them in jail. And then I get them to tell me all about the worst thing they have ever done. And you don't think I can sell a &*^ing car??"

    So as a general rule, "shaddap" is pretty good advice.



  13. #13
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions.

    You...

    have...

    the...

    right...

    to...

    talk...

    to...

    a...

    lawyer....

    BEFORE...

    answering....

    any....

    of....

    our....

    questions.

    How does this get any clearer? How do you make someone understand the above using "clearer" terminology?

    What is left out that a moron cannot determine?

    There are only two words in the above sentence that have more than six letters!

    He SIGNED it!

    Yes I agree that Miranda is there to protect "we the people". Yes, I believe the police should make it well known that anyone being detained has the right to an attorney.

    They do!

    If some moron wants to sing anyway........it's on him.

    Although I disagree with the reasoning behind this poor sap's arrest....

    How can you get any clearer than:

    You...

    have...

    the..?



  14. #14
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection.

    I'm confused as to what is illegal about that. I'm from VA not FL.
    "Illegally possessing" could mean that he's a prohibited person, or that his manner of carry was illegal. I doubt the sale itself was illegal (except for him possibly being a prohibited person).
    Yes Yes. I am more concerned with why the reporter wrote it as it misleads people to believe that lawful act was the crime.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    For all of you out there who think:



    "I am innocent; if I tell the truth, what bad could come of it?"



    You need to spend50 minutes watching this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc



    It might save you 50 months in jail.

  16. #16
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    Don't talk to the cops AND don't give interviews to the press ...

    http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-phar...rticle/3372941
    Ersland’s account of the incident doesn’t match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.

    Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941#ixzz0Zgnbg8kH
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •