a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by cgod
cgod  ·  1862 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The disappeared: Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden 'black site'

    Church says officers cuffed him to a bench for an estimated 17 hours, intermittently interrogating him without reading his Miranda rights to remain silent.

When are journalist going to learn that no one has a right to be read Miranda, it just effects what evidence can be used against you in trial if you have not. I find it infuriating. Maybe the journalist knows this and just wants to throw that in because they know that Americans are misinformed about Miranda and it will seem like an outrage to them if told a subject wasn't read their Miranda rights.

pseydtonne  ·  1862 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Actually, it's only recent that cops have been getting away with not reading Miranda rights. When Miranda v Arizona first got decided, it was debated whether cops would need to read the rights from a card each time or a memorized approach would be acceptable.

My father is a criminal attorney. I learned my Miranda when I was three.

But yeah, it's true: don't talk to oinks. Just don't. You're giving away your privacy. They can process you, and they'll ask you questions. Make clear that you will speak once your lawyer is present. Provide that name.

Don't have a lawyer? Know one.

cgod  ·  1862 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nothing recent about it, Miranda only deals with the admissibility of statements in court and that has been well established for a long time.

If a felon gets arrested and tells a police officer that they have a gun in the glove box the gun is still admissible in pursuit of a firearms charge. The statement of the felon that they have a gun in the glove box is inadmissible because no rights were read but it doesn't preclude the firearms charge. There is no fruit of the poison tree exclusion because someone wasn't read their rights. Miranda only has to do with admitting testimony in court, if it isn't given then the testimony can not be admitted.

The exceptions are few and mostly edge cases involving imminent danger like when there is a live shooter or terrorist threat. Plenty of debate about what constitutes imminent danger but generally not all that important to your average arrestee.

It doesn't violate your civil rights to not have Miranda read. It doesn't mean that the dumb things you might say to the police can't be used to gather evidence that you have committed a crime. It's not a get out of jail card to if your rights have not been read to you.

cgod  ·  1861 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Just for clarities sake and because people should understand their rights.

1. The police have no obligation to read you your Miranda rights. They never have. Journalist don't seem to understand this and there are many lawyers and even a few judges who seem to not comprehend this. The Supreme Court has consistently supported this view time and again, many justices on the Supreme Court believe that Miranda was a bad ruling which they have chosen to live with.

2. Failure to read you your Miranda rights means that things you say can't be used against you in court proceedings.

3. Evidence gained from an interrogation where Miranda hasn't been invoked can be used against in court proceedings as long as it's not the actual speech of the accused. Warrants can be issued as a result of information gained from interrogations from non-Mirandized suspects.

4. Your best bet is to keep your yap shut regardless of weather you have been read your rights or not.