High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit

[formerlurker]

High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit
By Associated Press  |   Monday, August 2, 2010  |  http://www.bostonherald.com 

WASHINGTON — You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you’re remaining silent.

You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don’t have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?

The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.

http://bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view.bg?articleid=1271741&format=text

[vesta111]

http://bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view.bg?articleid=1271741&format=text

Let's see if I understand this.

Anyone arrested does not have to be told about their rights, then a time limit is placed on them to use the rights they are unaware of.

So we Americans have a 14 day time line to protect our rights or loose the rights as an American Citizen that every other American has .????

This has to be a Joke, they take away the right to use the 5 Th. Amendent ????

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's a much-needed reining-in of ambiguities that have been nothing but a booby-trap for the popo for many decades.  Sooner or later some will no doubt game the new rules, that's after all what Americans do in everything else they do, including the criminals and their attorneys, but the vagueness about just where Miranda limits lie has been a thorn in the side of law enforcement for my whole life, and I'm close to retiring. 

[Celtic Rose]

How exactly does "You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you’re remaining silent." work?  If you have the right to remain silent, then I don't see how it should matter whether you tell them you are remaining silent, or if you just choose not to speak.  Unless, that just means that they have to stop questioning you at that point. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Basically it means you have to tell them 'I am invoking my rights' instead of just staring them down and saying nothing, acting catatonic, or trying to stare them down.  Yes, there really was a case on it.

The time limit thing is because it is not uncommon for suspects or witnesses to say 'I want to talk to a lawyer before I say anything else' and then they never, ever bother to talk to a lawyer, leaving the cops and the investigation in a fuzzy netherworld where they don't know whether they can try again or not, or if they do, whether anything they get will be ultimately admissible since they won't find that out until the ruling on the suppression hearing at trial.

[vesta111]

The time limit thing is because it is not uncommon for suspects or witnesses to say 'I want to talk to a lawyer before I say anything else' and then they never, ever bother to talk to a lawyer, leaving the cops and the investigation in a fuzzy netherworld where they don't know whether they can try again or not, or if they do, whether anything they get will be ultimately admissible since they won't find that out until the ruling on the suppression hearing at trial.

OK this is thinking to mean that everyone arrested is guilty of said crime.

It is not MY responsibility to prove I am not guilty of any offence, I am innocent against all charges until a Jury finds me guilty.

Who gives a flying fig about the cops being behind a rock and a hard place----We citizens do not have to help the cops or DA make a case against us.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Basically it means you have to tell them 'I am invoking my rights' instead of just staring them down and saying nothing, acting catatonic, or trying to stare them down.  Yes, there really was a case on it.

If I not mistaken: a suspect was Mirandized. He never said, "I wish to see a lawyer before I answer any more questions." or something akin to it. With that in mind the polic continued to question him and he eventually loosened. Then he went all the way to SCOTUS to have his statements withdrawn at which point SCOTUS says, "Withdrawn? LOL."

Methinks we will see an evolution of Miranda warnings along the lines of, "You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning...but you have X time to ask for one and unless you do we will continue to question you." because some other court will demand these new parameters be proactively presented to suspects.

I imagine in a hundred years your Miranda warning will be a 5-page letter that will have each paragraph briefed and initialed before you can be questioned on a roadside stop.

OK this is thinking to mean that everyone arrested is guilty of said crime.

It is not MY responsibility to prove I am not guilty of any offence, I am innocent against all charges until a Jury finds me guilty.

Who gives a flying fig about the cops being behind a rock and a hard place----We citizens do not have to help the cops or DA make a case against us.

Um-m-m...no.

A crime has been committed and the cops are obligated to investigate. That presumes SOMEBODY is guilty. Just because someone enjoys the presumption of innocence doesn't mean the cops can't investigate and find suspects. There's a reason suspects are called suspects even though they are presumed innocent.

[Wineslob]

Oh hell, when have the people on COPS ever been able to keep their mouth(s) shut?     

[DumbAss Tanker]

OK this is thinking to mean that everyone arrested is guilty of said crime.

It is not MY responsibility to prove I am not guilty of any offence, I am innocent against all charges until a Jury finds me guilty.

Who gives a flying fig about the cops being behind a rock and a hard place----We citizens do not have to help the cops or DA make a case against us.

I know you just write whatever pops into your head on the spur of the moment regardless of whether you actually know anything about the subject or not, but for anyone reading this who may not be aware of that aspect of your personal charm, Miranda warnings are only required when the person questioned is already in custody and being interrogated about their own criminal culpability. 

That means NOT free to leave when he or she has had enough jaw-jacking.  That also means the cops already have sufficient cause to allow them to 'arrest' (In the functional if not the formal sense) the person whom they are questioning.  It is certainly entirely up to that person whether he or she wants to supply any further information answering the questions, or supply information of his or her own about why the police might be off on the wrong track. 

Of course if the person doesn't, and the police have enough information already to amount to probable cause to believe the person has committed a custodial offense, the individual will be getting a room at the Iron Bar Inn where he or she can contemplate further courses of action in silence followed by a probable cause hearing in front of a judge or magistrate in the next 72 hours.

[DefiantSix]

The time limit thing is because it is not uncommon for suspects or witnesses to say 'I want to talk to a lawyer before I say anything else' and then they never, ever bother to talk to a lawyer, leaving the cops and the investigation in a fuzzy netherworld where they don't know whether they can try again or not, or if they do, whether anything they get will be ultimately admissible since they won't find that out until the ruling on the suppression hearing at trial.

OK this is thinking to mean that everyone arrested is guilty of said crime.

It is not MY responsibility to prove I am not guilty of any offence, I am innocent against all charges until a Jury finds me guilty.

Who gives a flying fig about the cops being behind a rock and a hard place----We citizens do not have to help the cops or DA make a case against us.

Here you go, honey; educate yourself. 

[youtube=425,350]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/08fZQWjDVKE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/08fZQWjDVKE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[vesta111]

Here you go, honey; educate yourself. 

[youtube=425,350]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/08fZQWjDVKE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/08fZQWjDVKE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

The only time I have ever become a person of interest was way back in Hawaii when I was around 22 years old.

I had 2 kids and living in a TLA apartment on  the second floor of a  hotel. waiting for housing with Hubby off on an SSBN in the Pacific.

One day a knock came on my door from a Lt. Tiger asking to come in and speak to me.  I was at this age of my life in love with Mystery books,{ English} And his name intrigued me.

WOW. a real life detective ,I had never met anyone that was a cop much less then one that was so different from the cops in New England.    A real life mystery came to my door that day.

I invited him to sit and tell me what this was all about--At no time time did I think I was a suspect for anything.

The detective asked me if I had seen anyone wandering about the apartments and and I told him no and that I often kept the door open for the cross ventilation I would have noticed had anyone passed my door.  Most of us kept the door open  at different times of the day.

He then told me that my neighbor whose door was perhaps 15 feet from mine had  someone steal his wallet.

My latest mystery book kicked in, Agatha Christie, and I asked him for details. It never occurred to me that I was the number one person that could taken the wallet.

He for some reason told me that the man had returned from food shopping and when he entered the apartment had placed his wallet on a side table near the door.

Someone who walked by had seen the wallet and snatched it while the man was in the bathroom.

I had no idea just how much trouble I could be in and as I love a good mystery tried to Analise the crime.

  My male neighbor has been shopping and returned home with 2 bags of grocery's.  To get his key out he would have had to put one down.

He unlocks the door and goes inside and would have to put one down again to take his wallet out---Strange behavior for a male. a woman might throw her purse on a chair but men usually keep their wallets on them.

Something ain't right here, I asked the detective when was the last time he removed his wallet and for what reason.

Oh what fun, a highlite of my life that one, my reading mystery's had saved me from suspicion as a thief.

If one is innocent, then work with the cops, they are human and any ideas you can come up with can help keep them off your back.

The only  hard cop I ever met was one that helped me out in Hawaii, I was 8 months pregnant and fell in the street. and became offended when I told him "  OH boy, I thank you you so much " and he replied,  " Don't call me boy"----Regional expression that is akin to saying. "  OH Brother"

[Tucker]

If the SC is going to shorten something, shorten the time the sumbitches live on death row. 20+ years is waaaaaaaaaaaay to long.

[vesta111]

If the SC is going to shorten something, shorten the time the sumbitches live on death row. 20+ years is waaaaaaaaaaaay to long.

How long has it been since you have read or watched the news.??

This DNA has cleared hundreds of people that have spent most of their lives in jail for a crime they did not commit.

These wrongfull conviction's have cost the family's of the convicted years of heart ache---not to mention the tax payers millions and millions in restitution for sending an innocent person to jail for 30+ years.

Just the other day a man was released after spending his intire adult life for a crime he did not commit.  His mother and grandparents died while he was behind bars and he was not allowed to attend their funeral.   Interesting just how much money he will sue for.

 Manson and his group got off easy due to the repeal of the death penalty in California, they should have been taken out as there was no doubt they did the deeds they were accused of.

Tricky question here, some people get the shaft and others find a way to live at our expenses.

[Tucker]

How long has it been since you have read or watched the news.??

This DNA has cleared hundreds of people that have spent most of their lives in jail for a crime they did not commit.

These wrongfull conviction's have cost the family's of the convicted years of heart ache---not to mention the tax payers millions and millions in restitution for sending an innocent person to jail for 30+ years.

Just the other day a man was released after spending his intire adult life for a crime he did not commit.  His mother and grandparents died while he was behind bars and he was not allowed to attend their funeral.   Interesting just how much money he will sue for.

 Manson and his group got off easy due to the repeal of the death penalty in California, they should have been taken out as there was no doubt they did the deeds they were accused of.

Tricky question here, some people get the shaft and others find a way to live at our expenses.

Don't bring up something from 30 years ago and apply it to today's standards of testing. Thugs convicted using modern Crime solving methods are most certainly guilty. Of those convicted without any doubt, fry em. Only one appeal to the SC.

[NHSparky]

vesta, hundreds?  Try again.  Maybe a few dozen nationally, TOPS.

Now think about how many walk free on procedural technicalities--one case comes to mine is a case where a policeman stopped a car on the Interstate and saw (SAW!) guns and drugs out in the open.  The driver and passenger were arrested, the drugs and car seized.

However, the whole case was tossed--why?  Because the reason the policeman gave was he stopped that they had no front plate, which was required in the state they were in.  However, the vehicle was from Pennsylvania, which, at the time (and may still apply), did not require a front plate.

How many times have you seen the same people in and out of court, time and time again?  Think of a few local examples?  I sure can--Maxwell Rome comes to mind, for starters.  Or the gent who has been arrested in Portsmouth 153 (whoops, make that 154!) times.  Or...fill in your own here.  I'm sure you have no problems doing that, right?

[vesta111]

vesta, hundreds?  Try again.  Maybe a few dozen nationally, TOPS.

Now think about how many walk free on procedural technicalities--one case comes to mine is a case where a policeman stopped a car on the Interstate and saw (SAW!) guns and drugs out in the open.  The driver and passenger were arrested, the drugs and car seized.

However, the whole case was tossed--why?  Because the reason the policeman gave was he stopped that they had no front plate, which was required in the state they were in.  However, the vehicle was from Pennsylvania, which, at the time (and may still apply), did not require a front plate.

How many times have you seen the same people in and out of court, time and time again?  Think of a few local examples?  I sure can--Maxwell Rome comes to mind, for starters.  Or the gent who has been arrested in Portsmouth 153 (whoops, make that 154!) times.  Or...fill in your own here.  I'm sure you have no problems doing that, right?

I agree  with you Sparky to a point.

You forget that those that walk have a JUDGE allowing them to do so.

Remember our very own Sleeping Judge that became controversial a few years ago.

Her husband an ex-lawyer, disbared for swindling senior citizens out of their life savings and has not to this day made any kind of restuition.

So she sits on the bench having slept through most of the testimony and finds it easier to dismiss a case then to be forced to stay awake for a trial.

Then today's news about that idiot Logan woman who was court ordered to spend 90 days in jail and the Sherriff over road the Judge with the excuse of over crowding and she spent less then 2 weeks.

Most interesting the facility she was sent to was over crowed BUT there was another one he could have ordered her into that had no crowding problem.

[AllosaursRus]

I know you just write whatever pops into your head on the spur of the moment regardless of whether you actually know anything about the subject or not, but for anyone reading this who may not be aware of that aspect of your personal charm, Miranda warnings are only required when the person questioned is already in custody and being interrogated about their own criminal culpability. 

That means NOT free to leave when he or she has had enough jaw-jacking.  That also means the cops already have sufficient cause to allow them to 'arrest' (In the functional if not the formal sense) the person whom they are questioning.  It is certainly entirely up to that person whether he or she wants to supply any further information answering the questions, or supply information of his or her own about why the police might be off on the wrong track. 

Of course if the person doesn't, and the police have enough information already to amount to probable cause to believe the person has committed a custodial offense, the individual will be getting a room at the Iron Bar Inn where he or she can contemplate further courses of action in silence followed by a probable cause hearing in front of a judge or magistrate in the next 72 hours.

This is the very reason I'd rather be a Bondsman than a cop! I got news Vesta, the cops wouldn't even be talkin' to ya if they figured you were a virgin when it comes to the crime they are investigating.

In my opinion, if you are a witness to a crime you have a responsibility to come forward! **** this, "I don't want to get involved" BS! If you have facts of a crime, it oughta be a crime for you to withhold info! If you don't give it up and another innocent is harmed, you should get the same sentence as the guilty POS who committed the offense.

Wanna know how often criminals re-commit, do to upstanding citizens worried more about the waste of their time than gettin' some of these gangsta crud off the streets? Don't give me that BS about personal harm either! If the pukes in jail he can't hurt ya and if his buds come around, it's the reason we have a Second Amendment!

I've seen way too many instances where a community refuses to help themselves and lives in fear of some of the most cowardly individuals our society coddles do to their so-called rights!

Stand up and join the human race!

"I don't have to prove my innocence"! I got news, if you're a suspect, I suggest you try!

[rich_t]

In my opinion, if you are a witness to a crime you have a responsibility to come forward!

Remember Richard Jewel and the 1996 Olympic bombing?

Though Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero for his role in discovering the bomb and moving spectators to safety, four days after the bombing, news organizations reported that Jewell was considered a potential suspect in the bombing. Jewell, at the time, was unknown to authorities, and a lone wolf profile made sense to FBI investigators after being contacted by his former employer at Piedmont College.

Though he was never arrested or named as more than a "person of interest", Jewell's home, where he lived with his mother, was searched and his background exhaustively investigated, all amid a media storm that had cameras following him to the grocery store.

Though Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero for his role in discovering the bomb and moving spectators to safety, four days after the bombing, news organizations reported that Jewell was considered a potential suspect in the bombing. Jewell, at the time, was unknown to authorities, and a lone wolf profile made sense to FBI investigators after being contacted by his former employer at Piedmont College.

Though he was never arrested or named as more than a "person of interest", Jewell's home, where he lived with his mother, was searched and his background exhaustively investigated, all amid a media storm that had cameras following him to the grocery store.[/quote]

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=player_embedded#!

[AllosaursRus]

Remember Richard Jewel and the 1996 Olympic bombing?
Though Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero for his role in discovering the bomb and moving spectators to safety, four days after the bombing, news organizations reported that Jewell was considered a potential suspect in the bombing. Jewell, at the time, was unknown to authorities, and a lone wolf profile made sense to FBI investigators after being contacted by his former employer at Piedmont College.

Though he was never arrested or named as more than a "person of interest", Jewell's home, where he lived with his mother, was searched and his background exhaustively investigated, all amid a media storm that had cameras following him to the grocery store.

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=player_embedded#!

Little hard to blame that one on the cops.

The news media, being the stalwart citizens we know them to be were head huntin'. I do blame the cops for leaking the info on suspects, but it was the MSM that tried him in the court of public opinion and made his life a livin' hell! Not the cops!

Are there mistakes, sure! We're of the human race after all, but with the way forensics are progressing, that sort of thing is becoming more rare by the day. How many instances of innocence compared to criminals walking away because of knowledgeable citizens keepin' their moths shut are there? 10 times? 100 times? Perhaps even in the thousands.

Gimme a break! Because we are not perfect, all the others should just get away with it?

ETA:

You do know murders of innocent by-standers in "the hood" and at convenience stores, liquor stores, etc, are solved less than half the time, right?

[vesta111]

Little hard to blame that one on the cops.

The news media, being the stalwart citizens we know them to be were head huntin'. I do blame the cops for leaking the info on suspects, but it was the MSM that tried him in the court of public opinion and made his life a livin' hell! Not the cops!

Are there mistakes, sure! We're of the human race after all, but with the way forensics are progressing, that sort of thing is becoming more rare by the day. How many instances of innocence compared to criminals walking away because of knowledgeable citizens keepin' their mouths shut are there? 10 times? 100 times? Perhaps even in the thousands.

Gimme a break! Because we are not perfect, all the others should just get away with it?

ETA:

You do know murders of innocent by-standers in "the hood" and at convenience stores, liquor stores, etc, are solved less than half the time, right?

Your words Allos. and the reason is that these eye witnesses have unfortunate ACCIDENTS , cannot feel safe even in their own homes.  Not all home invasions involve drugs or money, some are more personal then that.

We live under a double standard here. 

Stool pigion, rat, tattle tale and INFORMER come to mind.

This is the reason the police have a drop a dime on crime that is Anonymous.  It is to Protect those who fear retaliation from friends or family of a criminal from coming after You.

I disagree with your statement about most crimes going unsolved because people close their eyes to a crime, one does not put themselves in jeopardy for a crime that involves a gas station being robbed ----

We don't have to--even the smallest stores have security cameras, I bet you a shot and a beer that there are at least 20 of us in this forum  have hidden security inside our homes or outside somewhere on the property.


Now if someone sees a violent crime being committed they should morally call 911.

Legally people are not required to place their own lives in danger for anyone, family, friend or stranger.

As I stated on another topic, moral decisions that can ultimately cause fear or loss of life or life style for ones family are the most difficult to make.

Allos, you are a true Idealist,  but the facts remain that to survive one is responsible only for themselves and CYA is essential.

[JohnnyReb]

Call me when Miranda rights go something like this :

"You have the rights to an orange jumpsuit, pair of flip-flops and a bologna sandwich.

[DumbAss Tanker]

After 50+ years of cop shows on television since Miranda/Tempia/Gideon/etc., it is actually mind-boggling that there would be people so witless and/or out of touch with the world wandering around loose that they don't already know they have the right to remain silent, to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney appointed if they can't afford one. 

Without exception, everyone bitching about this knows those things already.  There is nothing in the Fifth or Sixth Amendments that requires police (Which didn't exist as we know them when the BOR was written anyway) to advise arrestees of their rights, it is purely a Supreme Court-imposed rule to ensure the arrestee does in fact know those rights.  It is, literally, a technicality.

But I do have to say it does also serve law enforcement interests, since if the cops follow the formula they can fairly easily prove any statement was voluntary after the ritualistic Reading of the Rights.  They can't actually ask the accused at the evidentiary hearing "You knew about those rights already, didn't you?" since the prosecution can't compel the accused to answer or even testify at all, so being able to testify they honored the appropriate ritual enables them to testify and get the admission or confession into evidence.           

[Hawkwarrior2]

Should I invoke my right to free speech before posting? Remind me to invoke my economic liberties before I go shopping. Before all that, I gotta invoke my right to privacy so I can up these new blinds. Busy day!

[DumbAss Tanker]

Should I invoke my right to free speech before posting? Remind me to invoke my economic liberties before I go shopping. Before all that, I gotta invoke my right to privacy so I can up these new blinds. Busy day!

You don't have a right to free speech on someone else's internet forum.  This is just the second post of yours I've read but so far you are batting 1000 for being ignorant but feisty about it.

[AllosaursRus]

You don't have a right to free speech on someone else's internet forum.  This is just the second post of yours I've read but so far you are batting 1000 for being ignorant but feisty about it.

And what's with "Probationary Probie"? Guilty conscience, or what? Or is that our label for it?