General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday, Justice Alito ruled that you have constitutional rights but no right to know what they are.
The NationToday, in a case called Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court rejects that idea. According to the conservative majority, the Constitution still protects people from incriminating themselves. But now, if cops trick or coerce or threaten or brutalize people into giving up their constitutional rights without telling people they have a right to make the intimidation stop, theres no way to sue the government for the failure to inform victims of their rights. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a 6-3 conservative majority, might as well have channeled Agent Smiths famous line from the Matrix: What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?
In Vega, Alito argues that the failure to give Miranda warnings does not result in a Section 1983 cause of action against the government. Section 1983 is the main vehicle for people to sue the government when government actors violate constitutional rights. Alito argues that the Miranda warnings are not a constitutional right; theyre just a thing cops can say if they feel like it. If cops violate constitutional rights under the 5th or 6th Amendments, victims can still sue the government (if they can somehow prove a violation occurred), or move to have the evidence unconstitutionally obtained against them at trial excluded. But Alito rejects Mirandas presumption that constitutional rights are violated if law enforcement fails to give the warning. Essentially, Alito argues that you have constitutional rights but no right to know what those are.
I couldnt invent a better example of the difference between a Supreme Court controlled by conservatives, versus one controlled by liberals, than the one given by the Court in its decisions in Vega versus Miranda. People often forget that the Miranda case itself was a 5-4 decision over conservative objections. Here, Vega is 6-3, functionally overturning Miranda with all the conservatives in lockstep. If you want robust protections of peoples rights, there is simply no substitute for having liberals control the Court. If you want robust protections of gun rights and corporate rights and Jesus rights, by all means, continue allowing the current conservative majority to rule over all.
Novara
(5,840 posts)They are literally re-writing the Constitution by fiat.
dchill
(38,472 posts)unblock
(52,196 posts)Whereas the consequence of not knowing your rights can be disastrous.
So, constitutional principles aside, it seems that always giving the Miranda warning is just a better process.
Note that without the ability to sue police officers for violating civil rights for failure to mirandize, the police are basically now free to discriminate in whom they choose to give the warning to.
Look for white suspects to get read their Miranda rights more often than minorities....
Aroundabout23
(69 posts)Because if the evidene is deemed insubmissible your lawyer will argue agains tit being introduced.
Of course that relies on your public defender doing a good job.
unblock
(52,196 posts)Yeah.
Well, Miranda rights came about for good reason. Look for police to resurrect old, discredited interrogation tactics to extract more false confessions and evidence that would be against legal advice.
Note that talking when it would be against legal advice had a lawyer been there to advise you can be harmful in more ways than merely allowing evidence that should be excluded from trial.
Such improperly extracted evidence could be used to further an investigation that leads to evidence that can't be excluded. Or it could lead to someone else making a confession, false or otherwise.
It also furthers the disparity in the judicial process in treatment of poor vs. rich people. Those affected by this will nearly always be poor people.
Aroundabout23
(69 posts)exboyfil
(17,862 posts)Never talk to the cops.
Say I Want a Lawyer
Say 5th Amendment
RANDYWILDMAN
(2,668 posts)that judicial crisis network can buy
Can we throw alito in Jail for abusing his white privilege ?
In It to Win It
(8,236 posts)If he weren't the rules, he'd sure break them.
sakabatou
(42,148 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)being interrogated.
People can still sue municipalities in civil court for monetary damages. This says they can't sue the officers involved in civil court.
This isn't good, but if we really thought this meant we have no right to know what our constitutional rights are, why wouldn't we be in the streets RIGHT NOW?! And if the truth isn't bad enough...? Isn't it?
We know where this court is going. People calling "wolf" need to retain credibility.