This was about getting a statement from someone without reading the miranda rights - which has been common practice for the last 100 years. The guy wasn't detained in any way. Not sure why everyone thinks this is a huge departure from how police operate.
Now I'm saying that to say this - NEVER talk to the police without an attorney present.
agreed. the way the title is written, i thought the ruling would allow an 'arrest' without knowledge of the arrested and indefinite surveillance without a court order. sounds nightmarish, but actually not too different than what the N_A is already doing.
but i do like the idea of all gov LEO's being required to remind you of your miranda rights before speaking to you for any purpose
No no no. That wasn't the problem. It's that this guy then sued the policeman over defaming him because he used statements as if they were collected legally in a court case which he was acquitted in, and the police did this without arresting him and mirandizing him; and the SCOTUS allowed the police to do this.
The problem is that this situation caused the police to violate this man's fifth amendment rights without due process and was not punished for it.
The ramifications are this: now that a legal precedent is established, the police can violate people's fifth amendment rights without being accountable or punished.
This means they WILL start mining alexa recordings, and bulk collection to 'find crimes' and there won't be anything we can do about it, because our fifth amendment rights have been overturned by SCOTUS
These comments are interesting and I do not disagree. Its how it works. We have no rights, and if the cops want to pull you out of the car and beat you to death they can do that.
But for the "higher law end". How is it not hypocritical to say you can be stopped and questioned WITHOUT the Miranda for the express purpose of arresting and prosecuting you. But once they have enough info to arrest you must be read your rights??
I don't think you fully understand the actual situation in the posted story. Police can question you without arresting you. But theyr'e not going to take you to court without an arrest, and so they will have to mirandize you before that happens, and then retroactively, the statements you made will be brought into question.
But if they bring you to court without mirandizing you, then the argument could be made that you were not aware that you were under arrest and so you could have made careless statements that could have been taken out of context or interpreted wrongly, that were used against you in violation of your rights not to self-incriminate (5th amendment).
That is the situation that the story talks about...but also, the guy was acquitted and then he sued the cop who arrested him, and I think it was essentially for defamation and self-incrimination. Sued him because he was taken to court over a situation without ever being arrested.
trust me on this. while the initial contact might not have included miranda warnings, the prosecutor did not bring a case to court without a proper arrest with miranda rights being read to him at the time of arrest. i think ur conflating initial contact (no miranda warnings) and actual arrest/prosecution.
This ruling isn't a departure from what was already common knowledge. Don't talk to cops without an attorney. He wasn't arrested or being arrested at the time, just being questioned.
no. it's like when someone gets pulled over for a traffic violation. they don't read you miranda rights before asking if u know how fast u were going. anything u say can always be used against you. like i said in another comment, it's not something i prefer, but it's not a departure form how things have always been. i would prefer cops be required to give u miranda warnings on contact for any reason.
sir, do you know why i pulled you over
stares silent straight forward
sir...are you ok? can you answer me?
stares silent straight forward
sir...im going to issue you a citation
stares silent straight forward
lol
This 100%
This was about getting a statement from someone without reading the miranda rights - which has been common practice for the last 100 years. The guy wasn't detained in any way. Not sure why everyone thinks this is a huge departure from how police operate.
Now I'm saying that to say this - NEVER talk to the police without an attorney present.
agreed. the way the title is written, i thought the ruling would allow an 'arrest' without knowledge of the arrested and indefinite surveillance without a court order. sounds nightmarish, but actually not too different than what the N_A is already doing.
but i do like the idea of all gov LEO's being required to remind you of your miranda rights before speaking to you for any purpose
No no no. That wasn't the problem. It's that this guy then sued the policeman over defaming him because he used statements as if they were collected legally in a court case which he was acquitted in, and the police did this without arresting him and mirandizing him; and the SCOTUS allowed the police to do this.
The problem is that this situation caused the police to violate this man's fifth amendment rights without due process and was not punished for it.
The ramifications are this: now that a legal precedent is established, the police can violate people's fifth amendment rights without being accountable or punished.
This means they WILL start mining alexa recordings, and bulk collection to 'find crimes' and there won't be anything we can do about it, because our fifth amendment rights have been overturned by SCOTUS
These comments are interesting and I do not disagree. Its how it works. We have no rights, and if the cops want to pull you out of the car and beat you to death they can do that. But for the "higher law end". How is it not hypocritical to say you can be stopped and questioned WITHOUT the Miranda for the express purpose of arresting and prosecuting you. But once they have enough info to arrest you must be read your rights??
I don't think you fully understand the actual situation in the posted story. Police can question you without arresting you. But theyr'e not going to take you to court without an arrest, and so they will have to mirandize you before that happens, and then retroactively, the statements you made will be brought into question.
But if they bring you to court without mirandizing you, then the argument could be made that you were not aware that you were under arrest and so you could have made careless statements that could have been taken out of context or interpreted wrongly, that were used against you in violation of your rights not to self-incriminate (5th amendment).
That is the situation that the story talks about...but also, the guy was acquitted and then he sued the cop who arrested him, and I think it was essentially for defamation and self-incrimination. Sued him because he was taken to court over a situation without ever being arrested.
trust me on this. while the initial contact might not have included miranda warnings, the prosecutor did not bring a case to court without a proper arrest with miranda rights being read to him at the time of arrest. i think ur conflating initial contact (no miranda warnings) and actual arrest/prosecution.
There is no saving the federal system, but there is nullifying it at the local level. c/ParallelSociety
Guess what tomorrow is, boys? It’s STFUFRIDAY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ
This is extraordinary
Very fucked up
We're not in america anymore
This ruling isn't a departure from what was already common knowledge. Don't talk to cops without an attorney. He wasn't arrested or being arrested at the time, just being questioned.
You and others upvoting you still don't get it.
I suggest you actually read the article instead of just upvoting "don't talk to cops"
That is intellectually lazy
no. it's like when someone gets pulled over for a traffic violation. they don't read you miranda rights before asking if u know how fast u were going. anything u say can always be used against you. like i said in another comment, it's not something i prefer, but it's not a departure form how things have always been. i would prefer cops be required to give u miranda warnings on contact for any reason.