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.
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.