Interesting read ...

[HSP]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/...miranda_rights

[BIG C]

Check out my reply here:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=329206&postcount=2

[bluffcityguy]

Originally Posted by BIG C

Check out my reply here:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=329206&postcount=2

From that post:

Eh, I don't think this really changes much by way of your right to remain silent.....Okay, they're saying here that you have to actually speak to them to say "I want to invoke my right to remain silent".....The Supreme Court has long ruled that you have to unequivocally and unambiguously invoke that right.....You can do that by either words or actions.....Either say "I don't want to talk", or simply "SHUT THE FUCK UP ! ! ! ! !.....

You're the practicing lawyer; I'm the dipshit that let his license lapse about 20 years ago (so it's not like you need my support), but FWIW you've said exactly what I've been thinking since this case hit the headlines. At "worst", this legitimizes what the cops have been doing since back when I was practicing (probably long before). Unless you pretty much demand to see a lawyer immediately (and keep demanding, loudly, until your lawyer arrives), the cops have always been "permitted" to do whatever they can to trick you into starting to talk. And once you start to talk, they can "start" questioning and not stop.

The only mental reservation I have is that I did read that Justice Stevens dissented in this case, and in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that if you want to know what the law really is, you should see on what side Stevens voted. If he's dissenting, the Supremes fucked up again (that's why I'm going to miss Stevens, J., now I won't know when the Supremes are fucking up).



Cheers,

bcg

[BIG C]

Originally Posted by bluffcityguy

The only mental reservation I have is that I did read that Justice Stevens dissented in this case, and in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that if you want to know what the law really is, you should see on what side Stevens voted. If he's dissenting, the Supremes fucked up again (that's why I'm going to miss Stevens, J., now I won't know when the Supremes are fucking up).



Cheers,

bcg

Stevens will definitely be missed by us defense attorneys trying hard to ensure our country won't become the Neo-Nazi State of the Western Hemisphere.....I really don't know enough about this woman that Obama is going to nominate to replace him, but one can only hope that she will bring the same kind of approach to the Constitution and keep a balance and a liberal presence strong enough to allow us to continue to be a great nation.....But to get to the point of my response to your post here, I just wanted to say that in the realm of criminal law and protecting your individual freedoms against gov't trampling of your rights, the very best way to tell when the Supremes have fucked up is to just see how Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas has voted.....Bush was looking for a right winger to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice and he found Rehnquist's clone in John Roberts and thus our individual liberties and freedoms continue to be slowly eroded and we're powerless to stop it from happening since Supreme Court justices serve for life (as do most federal judges except magistrates) and therefore don't have to worry about having a job.....

Having said all that though, I'm still painfully wounded by having to admit that Roberts and Scalia/Thomas actually got this one right for all the reasons that I stated in my reply to the OP.....Like it or not, the cops have their job to do (i.e., get a conviction) and as long as they don't violate the Constitution (which they didn't do here), then I have no problems with them tricking you into a confession, especially when it's so simple to keep from giving them a confession by simply (stop me if you've heard this before) "SHUTTING THE FUCK UP ! ! ! ! !"