Supreme Court appear poised to reverse 'Miranda"

[RandySF]

While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for abortion rights, a lesser-known case looks likely to erode another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights.

This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. These warnings, known as Miranda warnings after the 1966 Supreme Court case that first prescribed them, have become critical protections against coercive police interrogations and are routinely recited by officers whenever they make arrests or question suspects in custody.

The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings.

Although some state high courts have issued rulings that mirror the Supreme Court’s original decision in Miranda, the future of constitutional policing in a world where Miranda is overruled truly lies with state legislatures, who can decide to enact laws that mirror the original Mirandadecisionor vote to overrule any state high court that already does so, freeing themselves to reshape one of policing’s most central restrictions.




https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3517724-expected-reversal-of-miranda-requires-states-to-step-up-on-policing/

[crickets]

1. Seriously? What a stupid thing to do. nt

[RKP5637]

2. Seems some on SCOTUS would love a police state. n/t

[Walleye]

3. The last time they talked about getting rid of it, the police protested

Cops have learned that people will take them seriously when they read them their rights

[jimfields33]

4. I hate speculation. Let's wait for the results.

The reason for the abortion news was we had an actual leaked draft opinion. Nobody has a draft of this.

[LenaBaby61]

7. Serious question ....

I get what you say when you say don't jump the gun.

But do you trust this Opus Dei, Federalist purchased with the help of MoscowMitch, right-winged mostly male, plus a handmaiden's tale sitting justice to do the right thing? This is the most corrupt high court probably EVER. It's bad enough that 'allegedly' there's so much toxicity between Uncle Clarence and Roberts it's not funny. I mean, Thomas's wife was up to her beady eyeballs in a US Civil insurrection and he vowed to not recuse himself when he was sitting in on a case involving Jan. 6th.

I don't trust the reich-winged side of the court anymore than I could throw the Chrysler Building.

[jimfields33]

10. This doesn't even make sense

If they get rid of it, it hurts the republicans and rich too.

[Celerity]

13. so does overturning Roe v Wade, but that is on the chopping block as well, the RW agenda doesn't

give a shit about its 'little people' supporters

hurts the republicans and rich too

the rich will almost always walk away unbattered, often untouched at all

Rules and laws for thee, never for me.

[SoonerPride]

5. The March to fascism continues

Sigh

[Wounded Bear]

6. Setting us up for the Sovereign Citizen takeover...

State by state, county by county. They truly want to destroy the Federal Government.

[gldstwmn]

18. This is exactly what they are trying to do here.

[Kablooie]

8. If they do it may indicate that they want to throw out everything decided in the past 60 years.

They want to eliminate all the decisions since the 1960s and push the whole legal system back to what it was in 1950s and earlier.
Back to those wonderful days when men were men and women were servants.

Will this include re-legalizing racial discrimination and criminalizing non hetero sex?
I'll bet it will.

[Princess Turandot]

9. This case concerns the ability of someone to sue the police in civil court for damages if they...

fail to give them the Miranda warning prior to questioning them.

Some doomsayers are parsing the language in the plaintiff's arguments to suggest that if the court rules for him and crafts the opinion in a certain way, Miranda might be in jeopardy. In this particular article, however, the heading is click-bait: the author, a guest opinion writer, does not explain at all how he reached that conclusion. Instead, he is using the opportunity to discuss his subject of interest, police policy reforms.

The justices' questions (as discussed in SCOTUSblog) don't appear to suggest that they want to reverse Miranda.

Wait for the opinion.

[Midwestern Democrat]

15. I figured this headline had to be overblown - William Rehnquist HATED the Miranda

decision from the day it was decided and yet even HE voted to affirm it years later (on the basis that it was now long-established precedent).

[Hortensis]

17. As you say. Almost no discussion of this on the web. The ACLU

lists the case, as an example, but hasn't sounded any alarms.

Miranda of course says that people detained by the police must be informed of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. As said, this case is about a civilian suing a police officer in civil court for not doing so.

While looking for alarms, I read that Miranda's apparently been woven so deep into our legal system (my words) that it's become more than just a law that congress could pass and repeal, but that courts have always held it less sacrosanct than the constitutional rights themselves. Many cases affecting and chiseling away or supporting Miranda make their way to the appellate and high courts.

Wait for the opinion.

[Initech]

11. What could possibly go wrong there?

[spanone]

12. Ushering in a police state. How supreme of them.

[Celerity]

14. The Doom of June

[UTUSN]

16. Hell bent on reversing all decisions and precedents for wingnut aims