![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumYesterday I was happy to announce China adopted an exclusionary rule and (in theory) banned torture by removing the incentive.
The US, so I find out today, just, effectively, did away with Miranda.
The case came from Southfield, Mich., where a shooting suspect refused to sign a statement acknowledging that he had been given the Miranda warning but didn't expressly state he was invoking his right to remain silent.
Kennedy said, writing for the majority (guess who they were), "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." He also said, ""the interrogation was conducted in a standard-size room in the middle of the afternoon," conditions that weren't inherently coercive."
Right. A standard room, three cops, three hours. Not allowed to leave and told anything he says will be used against him. He stands mute, for three hours, and responds to a "gotcha" question.
I've always said the thing to tell a cop, when he wants to talk to you about anything more than what you saw, when he arrives to the scene of an event you witnessed is, "I'll be glad to talk to you when my lawyer gets here."
All the more so now.
The US, so I find out today, just, effectively, did away with Miranda.
The case came from Southfield, Mich., where a shooting suspect refused to sign a statement acknowledging that he had been given the Miranda warning but didn't expressly state he was invoking his right to remain silent.
Kennedy said, writing for the majority (guess who they were), "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." He also said, ""the interrogation was conducted in a standard-size room in the middle of the afternoon," conditions that weren't inherently coercive."
Right. A standard room, three cops, three hours. Not allowed to leave and told anything he says will be used against him. He stands mute, for three hours, and responds to a "gotcha" question.
I've always said the thing to tell a cop, when he wants to talk to you about anything more than what you saw, when he arrives to the scene of an event you witnessed is, "I'll be glad to talk to you when my lawyer gets here."
All the more so now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Being in the field..
Date: 2010-06-02 06:49 pm (UTC)So they can keep going, and work on you until you start to talk; about anything, at that point it's Katy bar the door; because the cops don't have to respect your right.
Which means it's no longer a right we defend.
Re: Being in the field..
Date: 2010-06-02 07:20 pm (UTC)Likely as not, the warning will be changed to reflect VA's version:You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights or the generic version: Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?
The police go to GREAT lengths to make sure that cases do not get thrown out. You'll hear those rights a minimum of 3 times in most places.
I look at it as a pundulum swing. For a long time, rights we should have had were not presented to us as such. The burden was placed on the state. Now more is being placed on the individual.