Miranda Rights--Cops NO LONGER HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THEM

[irisblue]

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=Auiausut_FhSqNU3r2XmAw

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=_9XZbX4dS4nO3ZxJCNqkig

[irisblue]

1. Fuck Alito BTW

[ellie]

2. I think it's

cute that these people think they are going to rule forever.

[Lochloosa]

3. NEVER TALK TO A COP!

[Celerity]

8. OP that, it is crazy vital at this point

[Lochloosa]

20. Done.

[Hotler]

22. +1.... Shut the fuck up.

These guys make sense. They have more in depth videos.

[malthaussen]

4. Been trending in that direction for awhile.

A few years ago, the Court ruled that a suspect must explicitly invoke the 5th, but if he doesn't, he is assumed to have waived the right to remain silent. IOW, whereas previously one had to explicitly decline the right (usually in a signed statement), now he has to explicitly demand the right. Not having to inform a suspect of this right is the next logical step in the chain of overturning Miranda, which is pretty much fully accomplished with this ruling. Now I guess they can move on to something else, like cruel and unusual punishments.

-- Mal

[FM123]

5. What Elie Mystal said is true....

Conservatives are going to tell you that cops still CAN read you your rights... IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT... and still *can't* beat you into a confession, if you can prove they did. But the whole point of the rights is a thing to ENSURE you know your rights and now, that's gone.

[roamer65]

6. Don't talk to police.

Especially now.

[MOMFUDSKI]

30. You ask for an attorney RIGHT UP FRONT

no matter what. This has been done by the court to fill up the privatized prisons that much quicker. What a country.

[roamer65]

31. Yup and demand they read the Miranda rights.

We should not let the cops get into the habit of not reading them to us.

[ananda]

7. SC is going full shark now.

No gun restrictions

No Miranda rights

No access to reproductive health care

You can imagine what's coming down the line...

and it aint good.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. More important question: does UN-Mirandized evidence get excluded from a trial?

That is much more important than suing a police officer- it used to be, if you weren’t read your rights, then statements you made couldn’t be used in court against you.

What did SCOTUS say about that?

[Aroundabout23]

13. i think this ruling does change it.

If you don't have recourse to them using it how will you stop them from using it? They can introduce it in court and PERHAPS it can be stricken from the record, but it will already have been introduced. The damage will have already been done.

[RobinA]

24. This Was My Thought

It's the important question.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

33. Yes, un-Mirandized evidence still gets excluded.

However, with this ruling, you can't then sue the police officer for not reading you your rights.

[dumbcat]

10. Which is it?

I see two different statements of the ruling in the OP. One says cannot sue "the officer", the second one says "the government". Two different things. What does it actually say?

[PTWB]

11. That isn't what was held.

The cops still must mirandize suspects who are in custody and being interrogated. If they fail to do so, their statements are not admissible at trial.

But, with this ruling, one cannot then sue the officer for civil damages based upon that officer not issuing the Miranda warning.

The Miranda warning / rights are still in full effect.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

12. Thank you.

[Aroundabout23]

14. But the problem is that there will be no penalty to not reading them

I am afraid that them being introduced in court will have no penalty other than striking them from the record, but in a jury situation they will have already heard the statements. (I believe that is true right now as well) the problem I believe is that I think mirandizing a suspect will start to fall by the wayside and you will have people saying things to cops they shouldn't be saying and subsequently that info being introduced in court. And then yes possibly being stricken but will judges and jurors strike it from their judgements?

[PTWB]

16. No, that isn't how that works.

The admissibility of those statements is decided before the trial / before they’re introduced to a jury. If something as damaging as a confession is ruled inadmissible, and then an officer or a prosecutor brings it up in front of the jury, you’d have a mistrial.

[Aroundabout23]

18. True but doesn't a mistrial have to be ruled by the judge?

I also think that ruling something as admissible is problematic for me if the cop not being held responsible could make the gamble worth it to a prosecutor if they are willing to go there. If their case isn't strong enough and they want to go for a conviction and they think they won't get it without doing it.... then why not try it? Could be we see a lot more mistrials. It also is a way for rich criminals to game the system. We know it aleady happens when prosecutors throw the case for the wealthy. This is just another way for that to happen.

Bottom line this is a VERY bad ruling by the court.

[PTWB]

19. No, that isn't how that works.

This has no impact on the admissibility of confessions. Nothing that was inadmissible yesterday is admissible today.

Without getting deep into the weeds of exigencies, Miranda is required if the following two conditions are met: a suspect is in custody and is being interrogated.

That has not changed. The Miranda rights / warning is still in full effect.

[Aroundabout23]

25. That all might be true

However, then why do we (rather did we) require police to read them?

There surely must be reasons for that to have been a thing no?

[PTWB]

26. The same reason they still must be read today...

That hasn’t changed.

[Hortensis]

21. Bad ruling, but it's not more than it is. Cops will still get in trouble

at work by not mirandizing people as required -- in custody while being interrogated, and failure to mirandize when required will still cause serious problems for prosecutors.

This case says civilians can't sue officers themselves under civil law for money damages. But they can still pursue the municipality.

As for mistrials, they're costly failures for prosecutors and sometimes also judges.

[Jedi Guy]

27. There will absolutely be a penalty for not reading the Miranda warning.

If an officer fails to read the Miranda warning and vital evidence is inadmissible as a result, you bet the DA's office and that officer's immediate supervisor are going to have some feelings about that.

And your fears regarding a jury are groundless. Evidence that's inadmissible because the defendant wasn't read their Miranda rights will never even make it to the courtroom. It'll be ruled as inadmissible before it even goes to trial.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. The mis-information on this and the 2A ruling is appalling here,

where we're supposed to be the more rational ones.

Thank you for attempting to set the record straight.

[Jedi Guy]

28. Yeah, these threads are always good for a laugh.

But c'mon now, MCE. You've been around long enough to know the score.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. And that's exactly why I'm not even engaging

the doom and gloomers with their mis-interpretation of these 2 decisions, they've made up their minds and don't really want to hear the actual meaning of the decisions.

[greenjar_01]

23. That's how I understand it as well

The non-Mirandized statements remain inadmissible, which was the essence of Miranda.

[Cyrano]

15. And so, the curtain of fascism descends further upon us

[Drb2072]

32. No remedy no protection

A right without remedy is hardly a right.

Think Trump and Hatch Act. He violated at will because the only remedy was impeachment, which is hardly one.

Nothing to stop a cop violating 5A rights, court admitting the coerced confession, and someone suffering a consequence. Sure maybe it’s overturned on appeals (maybe it isn’t) but even if a higher court finds negligence and throws out the conviction, no remedy available.

You still spent the time in prison pending appeal….

[BlueCheeseAgain]

34. I'm surprised and disappointed in what Elie Mystal wrote.

This emphatically does NOT overturn the right to remain silent. That's protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Not only that, if you're not read your rights, any evidence that is gained afterwards is still inadmissible. The Miranda warnings are still required.

The ruling does say that you can no longer sue the police afterwards for it, which is disappointing. But it does not overturn any other rights of the accused.