US Supreme Court abridges Miranda Rights

[Straha]

Now your fifth amendment rights are "opt-in" instead of "opt-out". Woo!

Criminal defendants must specifically invoke the right to remain silent under the Miranda rule during questioning to avoid self-incrimination, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.

The vote in the case was 5-4 along ideological lines as the court's conservatives put limits on the rights of suspects.

Under the Miranda rule, derived from the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, police may not question a suspect who invokes his right to remain silent—and can't use as evidence incriminating statements obtained after the suspect does so.

In Tuesday's decision, the court ruled that an ambiguous situation would be treated in favor of the police.

The case came from Southfield, Mich., where a shooting suspect refused to sign a statement acknowledging that he had been given the Miranda warning, and didn't expressly state that he was invoking his right to remain silent.

Police interrogated the suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, for nearly three hours, during which time he said almost nothing. A detective then began asking Mr. Thompkins about his religious beliefs: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

Mr. Thompkins said, "Yes," but refused to make any further confession. The prosecution introduced the statement as evidence, and a jury convicted Mr. Thompkins.

On appeal, Mr. Thompkins's lawyers contended that use of the statement violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Writing for himself and four conservatives, Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected that argument.

"If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," Justice Kennedy wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Justice Kennedy added that no evidence suggested police coerced the statement, and observed that "the interrogation was conducted in a standard-size room in the middle of the afternoon," conditions that weren't inherently coercive.

In sum, "after giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights," Justice Kennedy wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent longer than the majority opinion, argued the majority misread precedent and reached beyond the facts of the case to impose a tough new rule against defendants.

"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," Justice Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak."

It as one of the first major dissents by Justice Sotomayor, who joined the court last September and has generally sided with the liberal bloc. as expected. A former prosecutor, she embraced the 1966 Miranda decision and said, citing precedent, that the rights it protects reflect "many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations."

There are a lot more stories about this going on, but in short you now have to speak up in order to remain silent. Worst, I think, is the fact that this is going to fuck over people who don't know that they have the right to remain silent and essentially leave them unprotected if the police really go after them.

[Coyote]

What would the effect be if someone told an arresting officer "From this point on, I am saying nothing until I have a lawyer based on my rights under the 5th Amendment" and just clapped up from that point on?

[SVPD]

I don't see how this changes the normal application of Miranda much at all. Once you're read your Miranda rights you can remain silent by.. remaining silent. The police can keep trying to question you, but nothing makes it so that you have to respond, and you can still just say "I want a lawyer".

The right to remain silent never literally meant complete silence because nonincriminating, identifying information has never been protected. You don't have a right to refuse to reveal your identity; if you did revealing your driver's license would be a violation of your Miranda rights. This is no different, saying "I don't want to answer any questions" isn't requiring you to "speak to remain silent" in the sense the ammendment means because the fact that you remained silent is Constitutionally protected and cannot be used against you.

Sure, it allows the police to keep asking you questions if you don't say "I"m not talking" but they could already do that; it was precisely that situation that led to the case in the first place. Since you must be Mirandized before you're questioned, the "people who don't understand their rights" bit doesn't hold much water. The problem woth people not understanding their rights in this country stems from people getting their ideas of their rights from TV drama. You'd be amazed at the rights people think they have, and at those they don't understand they have. My personal favorite was a female who thought that being restrained after slapping a male officer across the face was a violation of her rights.

[SVPD]

What would the effect be if someone told an arresting officer "From this point on, I am saying nothing until I have a lawyer based on my rights under the 5th Amendment" and just clapped up from that point on?

Then he had damn well better stop asking questions until your lawyer gets there and talks to you or until the court appoints one for you if you're indigant.

[Temujin]

Just lovely. More whittling away of our rights, no matter how slight.

I see this causing a lot of confusion among people, most of whom aren't intimately familiar with how the law works to begin with; and more abuses by unscrupulous police who take advantage of that confusion.

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

[Alyeska]

While I was angry at first, I am mulling this over in my head and I can't really see how this changes things.

It is my understanding that police may interrogate you before you demand a lawyer but after you have been read your Miranda Rights. They can use what you say against you. They will only leave you alone after you've demanded a lawyer.

How exactly does this ruling fundamentally change things? Even before this ruling simply staying silent didn't cause the police to leave you alone. The only way to tell the police to Sod Off was by asking for a lawyer. And even with this ruling, staying silent protects you. They can annoy the piss out of a suspect, but so long as he remains silent, they can't use shit against him.

Or does this ruling mean that simply asking for a lawyer is not sufficient to make the police leave you alone? Do you now have to specify "I am exorcising my Miranda right to a lawyer?" I doubt that. It sounds like a big legal risk to take someone to trial who demanded a lawyer and the police still badgered him.

[SVPD]

Yes, that's essentially how it's always been. You can keep asking questions untilt hey either say "I wish to remain silent" or "I want a lawyer." If they refuse to say anything at all, you can keep asking but you can't use that silence against them in court either before or after this ruling.

It doesn't whittle away or change rights at all; it just makes what was already the de facto way of doing things a matter of precedent.

[Big Phil]

Just lovely. More whittling away of our rights, no matter how slight.

I see this causing a lot of confusion among people, most of whom aren't intimately familiar with how the law works to begin with; and more abuses by unscrupulous police who take advantage of that confusion.

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

Miranda wasn't a "right" until 1966, and since the Supreme Court hasn't taken away this protection, only revised the way it should be applied and invoked, I fail to see how this is "more whittling away of our rights."

[SVPD]

Just lovely. More whittling away of our rights, no matter how slight.

I see this causing a lot of confusion among people, most of whom aren't intimately familiar with how the law works to begin with; and more abuses by unscrupulous police who take advantage of that confusion.

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

Miranda wasn't a "right" until 1966, and since the Supreme Court hasn't taken away this protection, only revised the way it should be applied and invoked, I fail to see how this is "more whittling away of our rights."

To be even more technical, Miranda isn't rights at all. The Miranda warning advises you of your Constitutional rights that you always had. The warning exists in order to advise people of what their rights are in case they are not.

[Temujin]

Just lovely. More whittling away of our rights, no matter how slight.

I see this causing a lot of confusion among people, most of whom aren't intimately familiar with how the law works to begin with; and more abuses by unscrupulous police who take advantage of that confusion.

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

Miranda wasn't a "right" until 1966, and since the Supreme Court hasn't taken away this protection, only revised the way it should be applied and invoked, I fail to see how this is "more whittling away of our rights."

So what if it wasn't enacted until 1966, it was done so to help protect people against self-incrimination. The average person isn't that familiar with what all their rights are or entail; especially less educated people, like minorities and the poor. Miranda helps in the regard. It was perfectly fine the way it was, it didn't need to be altered. And while a minor change, it puts, more power back into the hands of the police, who in America don't exactly have the best track record regarding their behavior in upholding the law.

It's also quite telling that again we have the 5 five conservative assholes judges supporting such a measure, two of which were appointed under an administration that wiped its ass with the Constitution and other established laws, while the four more liberal judges dissented.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I think the case in the OP should be thrown out, but for an entirely different reason:

The officer asked the man if he prayed to god for forgiveness. That makes the officer in question a de facto priest in a de facto priest and penitant situation.

It would be like an officer asking a man who they suspect has been shot a leading question like "do you need me to provide first aid because you were shot tonight robbing a liqour store?" In that case, he would be offering medical assistance, and I would think that doctor-patient confidentiality would apply (even though he's probably only EMT-trained at best, it would still hold as, IIRC, EMTs are held to the same confidentiality standards.)

That said, I do think the court has ruled wrongly in this case. The right to refuse to self-incriminate should need to be explicitly waived, not explicitly invoked. However, they haven't actually changed anything; rather, they didn't, so...

It should come as no surprise that it was a strict ideological line vote. The sooner those old conservobags croak/retire, the better.

[SVPD]

So what if it wasn't enacted until 1966, it was done so to help protect people against self-incrimination. The average person isn't that familiar with what all their rights are or entail; especially less educated people, like minorities and the poor. Miranda helps in the regard. It was perfectly fine the way it was, it didn't need to be altered. And while a minor change, it puts, more power back into the hands of the police, who in America don't exactly have the best track record regarding their behavior in upholding the law.

It's also quite telling that again we have the 5 five conservative assholes judges supporting such a measure, two of which were appointed under an administration that wiped its ass with the Constitution and other established laws, while the four more liberal judges dissented.

It doesn't alter Miranda at all, nor transfer any power into the hands of the police. The Miranda warning is still required before any questioning occurs. A person who sits there and refuses to say anything is still able to remain silent just as a person who states they wish to remain silent.

The average person, even poor and relatively uneducated ones, understand full well that they do not have to say anything to the police. That's not a hard concept to get; it requires no great familiarity with the legal system to understand that you have the right to shut the fuck up and the right to an attorney. It's not like these are obscure points of judicial lore either.

[Straha]

ShadowDragon, you're wrong for soooo many reasons that I can't even begin to explain them. Please, do us all a favor, and shut up unless you understand what the hell is going on.


As for the thread. I was going to write up a longer thing on why this matters but the New York Times summarized it very quickly:

Indeed, the Miranda decision said that “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” It added that the government faced “a heavy burden” in trying to prove that a suspect’s waiver was knowing and intelligent.

In other words, it now flips burden of proof in favor of the police. Whereas before if someone was brought in for questioning and started talking the police had to prove that the suspect knew that they A. knew what their rights were and B. knew they were waiving them. Now if someone starts talking the police can simply assume that the person's fifth amendment rights are waived and act accordingly.

Assume, for instance, the man from the OP was disorientated or mildly handicapped in any way (temporary or permanent), and didn't fully understand their miranda rights. Were he to talk before this decision he'd have a valid appeal, now the second he says anything it's assumed that he is waiving his rights, and that's horribly problematic.

I can understand allowing some leeway when it comes to interpretation of whether or not someone understands their rights and is just being obstinate, but this goes too far for my taste.

[Stofsk]

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

Canada is a part of the Commonwealth, and we all share a common legal ancestry to England. The difference between us and America is that America has the bill of rights written into the constitution, and these bill of rights are pretty plain-speaking and easy to understand/follow. As has already been said in this thread, miranda isn't a 'right', it's just telling you what your constitutional rights are (in case you weren't aware of them or whatever). I can't speak for Canada, but in Australia the right to remain silent still exists and is in legislation, the problem is that a lot of the details are in legalese. For example, you may be considered a suspect and questioned without being cautioned if the police put you down as a 'person of interest' instead of as a suspect (as defined in the Crimes Act). A suspect needs to be properly cautioned, a person of interest does not. This can lead to problems when someone thinks he's a witness and spends half a day in a police station after finding his father brutally murdered, when the cops on the other hand have him pegged as a person of interest so they don't have to caution him. Being in a police station for half a day could also be considered a custodial situation as well.

Unfortunately you can have all the rights you want in the world, they mean absolutely nothing if you're not aware of them. When you're formally interviewed the detective will caution you in the beginning and say that you can choose to give a no comment interview, and communicate or attempt to communicate with a lawyer (who will tell you flat out to give a no comment interview). If you're stupid enough to keep talking to them after that good luck to you. (hint: it doesn't help you to keep talking to them)

As for Europe, I don't know. They don't have an adversarial system, but what is called a continental or inquisitorial system. Thanas could certainly tell you more.

[ShadowDragon8685]

ShadowDragon, you're wrong for soooo many reasons that I can't even begin to explain them. Please, do us all a favor, and shut up unless you understand what the hell is going on.

Feel free to fuck yourself with a rusty spoon, please. This is N&P: You want to say I'm wrong, you need to outline why.

Indeed, the Miranda decision said that “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” It added that the government faced “a heavy burden” in trying to prove that a suspect’s waiver was knowing and intelligent.

In other words, it now flips burden of proof in favor of the police. Whereas before if someone was brought in for questioning and started talking the police had to prove that the suspect knew that they A. knew what their rights were and B. knew they were waiving them. Now if someone starts talking the police can simply assume that the person's fifth amendment rights are waived and act accordingly.

Assume, for instance, the man from the OP was disorientated or mildly handicapped in any way (temporary or permanent), and didn't fully understand their miranda rights. Were he to talk before this decision he'd have a valid appeal, now the second he says anything it's assumed that he is waiving his rights, and that's horribly problematic.

I can understand allowing some leeway when it comes to interpretation of whether or not someone understands their rights and is just being obstinate, but this goes too far for my taste.[/quote]

Far too far for mine. This... Is quite the sticky mess, for all the reasons you've outlined. With any luck it'll get reversed in a year or two... Once the balance of the court has shifted back to "sanity."

[SVPD]

ShadowDragon, you're wrong for soooo many reasons that I can't even begin to explain them. Please, do us all a favor, and shut up unless you understand what the hell is going on.


As for the thread. I was going to write up a longer thing on why this matters but the New York Times summarized it very quickly:

Indeed, the Miranda decision said that “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” It added that the government faced “a heavy burden” in trying to prove that a suspect’s waiver was knowing and intelligent.

In other words, it now flips burden of proof in favor of the police. Whereas before if someone was brought in for questioning and started talking the police had to prove that the suspect knew that they A. knew what their rights were and B. knew they were waiving them. Now if someone starts talking the police can simply assume that the person's fifth amendment rights are waived and act accordingly.

Assume, for instance, the man from the OP was disorientated or mildly handicapped in any way (temporary or permanent), and didn't fully understand their miranda rights. Were he to talk before this decision he'd have a valid appeal, now the second he says anything it's assumed that he is waiving his rights, and that's horribly problematic.

I can understand allowing some leeway when it comes to interpretation of whether or not someone understands their rights and is just being obstinate, but this goes too far for my taste.

This really doesn't change anything, because before the police could still assume a person that started talking was waiving their rights and act accordingly. A person can still claim they didn't understand their rights, and the police will still have to prove that they did, in fact, understand them. It doesn't affect the way an appeal works at all because previously there was no requirement for the police to stop questioning a person who was saying nothing at all after he'd been read his rights.

A person who is intoxicated or whatever and therefore can't understand will still have the same protection as before, because they have to understand their rights beforequestions can be asked that will be admissible in court. A person is still assumed to be waiving their rights by talking, but that rests ont he assumption of a suspect in a capacity to waive them; one who is too intoxicated or otherwise impaired to understand cannot do that.

[Master of Ossus]

In other words, it now flips burden of proof in favor of the police. Whereas before if someone was brought in for questioning and started talking the police had to prove that the suspect knew that they A. knew what their rights were and B. knew they were waiving them. Now if someone starts talking the police can simply assume that the person's fifth amendment rights are waived and act accordingly.

That has ALWAYS been the law, you fucktard. If someone comes up to police and starts talking, police have always had the right to act as a mere sounding board. If the police want to ask questions, they have to Mirandize first (assuming the person's been taken into custody for Fifth Amendment purposes).

Assume, for instance, the man from the OP was disorientated or mildly handicapped in any way (temporary or permanent), and didn't fully understand their miranda rights. Were he to talk before this decision he'd have a valid appeal, now the second he says anything it's assumed that he is waiving his rights, and that's horribly problematic.

Irrelevant. The Fifth Amendment right explicated under Miranda doesn't protect that. If he's unable to assist in his defense at trial, he's incapable of standing trial. But it's irrelevant why he's made a knowing and intelligent waiver.

I can understand allowing some leeway when it comes to interpretation of whether or not someone understands their rights and is just being obstinate, but this goes too far for my taste.

Far too far for mine. This... Is quite the sticky mess, for all the reasons you've outlined. With any luck it'll get reversed in a year or two... Once the balance of the court has shifted back to "sanity."

This decision is perfectly sane. Are you honestly suggesting that people who simply refuse to speak (despite the capacity) are incapable of saying "I'm not going to answer any questions," or similar?

[Temujin]

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

Canada is a part of the Commonwealth, and we all share a common legal ancestry to England. The difference between us and America is that America has the bill of rights written into the constitution, and these bill of rights are pretty plain-speaking and easy to understand/follow. As has already been said in this thread, miranda isn't a 'right', it's just telling you what your constitutional rights are (in case you weren't aware of them or whatever). I can't speak for Canada, but in Australia the right to remain silent still exists and is in legislation, the problem is that a lot of the details are in legalese. For example, you may be considered a suspect and questioned without being cautioned if the police put you down as a 'person of interest' instead of as a suspect (as defined in the Crimes Act). A suspect needs to be properly cautioned, a person of interest does not. This can lead to problems when someone thinks he's a witness and spends half a day in a police station after finding his father brutally murdered, when the cops on the other hand have him pegged as a person of interest so they don't have to caution him. Being in a police station for half a day could also be considered a custodial situation as well.

Unfortunately you can have all the rights you want in the world, they mean absolutely nothing if you're not aware of them. When you're formally interviewed the detective will caution you in the beginning and say that you can choose to give a no comment interview, and communicate or attempt to communicate with a lawyer (who will tell you flat out to give a no comment interview). If you're stupid enough to keep talking to them after that good luck to you. (hint: it doesn't help you to keep talking to them)

As for Europe, I don't know. They don't have an adversarial system, but what is called a continental or inquisitorial system. Thanas could certainly tell you more.

Thanks Stofsk, I figured there might be something comparable in Commonwealth law, but wasn't sure how clear that might be to a person suspected of a crime. It'll be interesting to see what the Canadian and English similarities are if those members choose to chime in. And I'd certainly like to here about European law.

Even though American law is different, I think your experience highlights why there is a need, regardless of the legal system in question, to ensure that anyone undergoing questioning has a full understanding of their rights and how they work. It's easy for someone to claim that a person should know and understand their rights, but if minor subtleties in the understanding of the law can easily result in an innocent person going to jail than perhaps there's a problem with the law. As Straha pointed out, this minor alteration (even though some don't think it important) makes what already can be a potentially problematic area that much more so.

[Stofsk]

Does miranda have to be given to someone who is not arrested but is still in a custodial situation? I mean scenarios where someone has been asked to accompany detectives back to a station, but haven't been arrested. Or is miranda given later at the start of a formal interview?

[Master of Ossus]

Does miranda have to be given to someone who is not arrested but is still in a custodial situation? I mean scenarios where someone has been asked to accompany detectives back to a station, but haven't been arrested. Or is miranda given later at the start of a formal interview?

Probably neither. IIRC, "custody" for Miranda purposes is defined as of the moment that someone is being subjected to the same pressures that accompany an arrest. If you're not a suspect and haven't been arrested and are free to leave, but have agreed to speak with police, you don't have to be Mirandized.

Even though American law is different, I think your experience highlights why there is a need, regardless of the legal system in question, to ensure that anyone undergoing questioning has a full understanding of their rights and how they work. It's easy for someone to claim that a person should know and understand their rights, but if minor subtleties in the understanding of the law can easily result in an innocent person going to jail than perhaps there's a problem with the law. As Straha pointed out, this minor alteration (even though some don't think it important) makes what already can be a potentially problematic area that much more so.

Please. How is an "innocent person" going to go to jail because they don't understand their Miranda rights? Miranda is about protecting the guilty. Period. Full stop. How is not "fully understanding" these rights going to keep you out of jail? Moreover, I'm willing to bet that only a tiny, tiny fraction of defendants understand the contours of Miranda, let alone have a "full understanding of their rights and how they work." Even with Miranda, over 80% of suspects taken into police custody waive their rights. Miranda simply isn't as important as its proponents argue. It's on shaky legal ground (is it a constitutional right? If so, how can it be abrogated under any circumstances? If not, how can it be imposed on states?), and it likely would've drawn much more criticism if it actually changed police practice.

Also, one important difference from English law is that English law can hold silence as evidence against someone. In America, prosecutors can't use that as evidence.

[ShadowDragon8685]

That has ALWAYS been the law, you fucktard. If someone comes up to police and starts talking, police have always had the right to act as a mere sounding board. If the police want to ask questions, they have to Mirandize first (assuming the person's been taken into custody for Fifth Amendment purposes).

Pardon me for not pursuing such precision in my speech that no possible misconstruction could take place. I was under the impression it was widely understood to mean that for someone to "talk" to the police under the context of an adversariial situation (IE, being "brought in") implied interrogation of some sort or another.

Assume, for instance, the man from the OP was disorientated or mildly handicapped in any way (temporary or permanent), and didn't fully understand their miranda rights. Were he to talk before this decision he'd have a valid appeal, now the second he says anything it's assumed that he is waiving his rights, and that's horribly problematic.

Irrelevant. The Fifth Amendment right explicated under Miranda doesn't protect that. If he's unable to assist in his defense at trial, he's incapable of standing trial. But it's irrelevant why he's made a knowing and intelligent waiver.

People who are disoriented or handicapped cannot by definition make a knowing and intelligent waver, you conservotarded moron. This decision shifts the burden of proof onto the defense to prove that the waiver or the speaking in spite of being Mirandized was not intelligent and knowing, not onto the police to prove that the waiver was knowing and intelligent

IFar too far for mine. This... Is quite the sticky mess, for all the reasons you've outlined. With any luck it'll get reversed in a year or two... Once the balance of the court has shifted back to "sanity."

This decision is perfectly sane. Are you honestly suggesting that people who simply refuse to speak (despite the capacity) are incapable of saying "I'm not going to answer any questions," or similar?

I'm honestly suggesting that the burden of proof should damned well be on the police to prove that a suspect knowingly waived their Miranda rights, not the defense to prove that the defendant did not.

[Akumz Razor]

Stofsk, when I got a DUI back in high school (2002. I was 18 years old, legally an adult. BAC .08, the legal limit for those over 21) I was questioned and breathalyzed before being taken to the station where I was finally read my rights and officially arrested after further questioning. It seems (at least in my case) that Miranda rights are not read until the suspect is being officially arrested.

[Master of Ossus]

That has ALWAYS been the law, you fucktard. If someone comes up to police and starts talking, police have always had the right to act as a mere sounding board. If the police want to ask questions, they have to Mirandize first (assuming the person's been taken into custody for Fifth Amendment purposes).

Pardon me for not pursuing such precision in my speech that no possible misconstruction could take place. I was under the impression it was widely understood to mean that for someone to "talk" to the police under the context of an adversariial situation (IE, being "brought in") implied interrogation of some sort or another.

Then how is your original statement any different from current law? If they're in custody, they must be Mirandized. If they talk after Miranda, they've waived their rights. That has always been the law. How is your scenario different from the law last month?

People who are disoriented or handicapped cannot by definition make a knowing and intelligent waver, you conservotarded moron. This decision shifts the burden of proof onto the defense to prove that the waiver or the speaking in spite of being Mirandized was not intelligent and knowing, not onto the police to prove that the waiver was knowing and intelligent

No. Being handicapped or disoriented does not invalidate a knowing and intelligent waiver if you're apprised of your rights. State v. Lather.

I'm honestly suggesting that the burden of proof should damned well be on the police to prove that a suspect knowingly waived their Miranda rights, not the defense to prove that the defendant did not.

But you obviously misconceive of what "knowing and intelligent" means. You, apparently, thought that it meant that someone who's handicapped is incapable of waiving Miranda!

Stofsk, when I got a DUI back in high school (2002. I was 18 years old, legally an adult. BAC .08, the legal limit for those over 21) I was questioned and breathalyzed before being taken to the station where I was finally read my rights and officially arrested after further questioning. It seems (at least in my case) that Miranda rights are not read until the suspect is being officially arrested.

You can always be breathalyzed, even if you invoke Miranda to stay silent. Giving a blood sample, or a breathalyzer, or your fingerprints, is physical evidence and isn't testimonial. You're right that you must be be in Miranda custody in order for Miranda to apply.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Stofsk, when I got a DUI back in high school (2002. I was 18 years old, legally an adult. BAC .08, the legal limit for those over 21) I was questioned and breathalyzed before being taken to the station where I was finally read my rights and officially arrested after further questioning. It seems (at least in my case) that Miranda rights are not read until the suspect is being officially arrested.

Miranda is only required if you are in custody and under interrogation. However, you could have argued that you were in custody prior to being arrested because you were not free to leave. Though that probably wouldn't have done much for you in that circumstance as people under 21 aren't allowed to have any measurable amount of alcohol in their bloodstream.

[Straha]

ShadowDragon, you're wrong for soooo many reasons that I can't even begin to explain them. Please, do us all a favor, and shut up unless you understand what the hell is going on.

Feel free to fuck yourself with a rusty spoon, please. This is N&P: You want to say I'm wrong, you need to outline why.

Having watched other trainwreck of threads with you in them, I'm going to probably waste my time right now. Regardless, in the hopes that you will astound me and break from your previous pattern of ineptitude, here are three quick reasons why you're wrong:

A. You have to be conferring with a priest in order for your statements to be protected by Confessional privilege. Asking someone "Do you pray for forgiveness for your sins?" no more makes them a priest than asking them about the weather makes them a meteorologist. This is basic common-sense, you dumb fuck.
B. Your statements have to be mad seeking religious guidance or forgiveness for them to be protected. Being asked "Do you pray for forgiveness for your sins?" does not mean you are seeking religious guidance.
C. Even then statements need to be made in PRIVATE for them to be protected. Talking about it in front of other witnesses waives the right to protection offered.

In short, think before you start typing you retard.


Now, for MoO, because those comments were from me.

In other words, it now flips burden of proof in favor of the police. Whereas before if someone was brought in for questioning and started talking the police had to prove that the suspect knew that they A. knew what their rights were and B. knew they were waiving them. Now if someone starts talking the police can simply assume that the person's fifth amendment rights are waived and act accordingly.

That has ALWAYS been the law, you fucktard. If someone comes up to police and starts talking, police have always had the right to act as a mere sounding board. If the police want to ask questions, they have to Mirandize first (assuming the person's been taken into custody for Fifth Amendment purposes).

I was talking about someone being held for questioning who starts talking to the police. The police have to mirandize first. The issue here is that this overturns the burden of proof requirements from the original Miranda case. To quote:

(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.

(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in custody interrogation he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.

(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant.

Those two sections? Junked. Now if he opens his mouth it is assumed that he knew that he was waiving his rights, unlike before when the police needed to explicitly prove that the defendant was informed and cognizant of his rights and chose to waive them.

Assume, for instance, the man from the OP was disorientated or mildly handicapped in any way (temporary or permanent), and didn't fully understand their miranda rights. Were he to talk before this decision he'd have a valid appeal, now the second he says anything it's assumed that he is waiving his rights, and that's horribly problematic.

Irrelevant. The Fifth Amendment right explicated under Miranda doesn't protect that. If he's unable to assist in his defense at trial, he's incapable of standing trial. But it's irrelevant why he's made a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Yes, Miranda does protect this, it's the entire damn reason for the case! If someone is capable of defending themself but is badgered by the police, without fulling understanding their rights, Miranda says that what they divulged to the police CANNOT be entered as evidence against them. This ruling says that merely talking indicates that they A. understand their rights and B. are waiving them.

This decision is perfectly sane. Are you honestly suggesting that people who simply refuse to speak (despite the capacity) are incapable of saying "I'm not going to answer any questions," or similar?

Irrelevant. The question here is whether or not someone understands their right to say "I'm not going to answer questions" or "I want a lawyer." Whereas before that capacity needed to be proven by the police, now the defence needs to prove the defendant's incapacity for them to be protected as fully as both Miranda and the Fifth amendment intended, that's problematic in all sorts of ways.