![[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 07:48 pm (UTC)As of the day before yesterday, they were enjoined from continuing to interrogate you, once you asked for a lawyer. Any question they asked, was void.
But that's still true now. You have the right to have your lawyer present while you are being interrogated - so as soon as you ask for a lawyer, they're violating your rights by continuing to interrogate you without one.
However, and again I'm a layman, I thought you don't have to say "I don't want a lawyer" for them to ask you questions without a lawyer. Not now, not two days ago. They have to tell you that you CAN have a lawyer, and they have to let you have a lawyer present during all interrogations if you ask for one, but if you don't actually ask for a lawyer, they aren't obliged to not ask you any questions.
In the same way, you have the right to remain silent, but it is my understanding that they can ask you questions, lawyer present or not, all day long if they want to, and your right to remain silent is predicated on you (or your lawyer) saying "I will not answer any questions" over and over again until they give up.
Is that not how it work(s/ed)? I'm well aware that any competent interrogator can get anyone to say SOMETHING incriminating about SOMETHING given enough time and answers - but isn't that the point of refusing to answer at all? Was there, previous to this ruling, an assumption that refusing to answer required them to stop asking? Even calling for a lawyer means they have to stop until the lawyer arrives.... but not that they have to stop *after* the lawyer arrives, right?
Or am I missing something fundamental?