full miranda decision from the supreme court . some one please boil it down so my head dosent hurt.

[AllaN01Bear]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf

[lapfog_1]

1. As I understand it.

you have your rights to not self incriminate and to object to illegal search and seizure.

But the police no longer have any duty to inform you of those rights.

Welcome to the Police State.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

2. The police can't be sued if they don't I believe is the decision

It was someone who was acquitted after not being Miranda’d and sued under a Federal law.
Supreme Court decisions always seem packed with nuance that doesn’t translate well.
In other words I could be wrong as well.

[PTWB]

6. That's not correct.

Nothing has changed regarding when the Miranda warning must be administered — if someone is in custody and being interrogated, they must be Mirandized. If a statement made outside of Miranda was inadmissible yesterday, it is still inadmissible today. Nothing has changed on that front.

The ONLY change is that if police question you without reading you your rights, and they were obligated to do so (you were in custody and you were being asked questions designed to solicit information about a crime), you cannot later sue that police officer in civil court. But whatever statement you made could not be used against you in court any more today than it could be used against you yesterday.

[onenote]

10. +1

[Historic NY]

3. Just don't talk to police, pretend your a POW in your own country...

Name-rank-serial number (DI or Social Security).

[elleng]

4. 'doesn't provide a basis for criminal defendants to bring civil rights suits against police

for not providing these warnings against self-incrimination.' from what I've read, briefly.

'Because claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983—the civil rights statute at issue in the case—can only be brought when there’s been a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,” merely preventative rules don’t count, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

He said Miranda warnings are meant to prevent improper police questioning and the use of statements obtained during such interrogations. A violation of the rules doesn’t itself run afoul of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Alito said.'

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/police-cant-be-sued-over-miranda-warnings-supreme-court-rules

[GregariousGroundhog]

5. Prosecutors cannot use evidence obtained from you if you were not read your rights

Prosecutors still cannot use evidence obtained from you if you were not read your rights. What has changed is that you can no longer sue for monetary damages if you were not read your rights.

[Voltaire2]

9. Well they can within the exceptions to the

exclusionary rule. The courts have weakened Miranda over the decades. Now they have removed an institutional constraint against exploiting Miranda loopholes.

[AllaN01Bear]

7. thanks to all whom responded to my question. love ya.

elleng , love your osprey pics.

[usonian]

8. Repost: There's a free Mobile Justice app from ACLU

In addition to the good advice above:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mobile-justice/id979642692
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.aclu.mobile.justice.ca&gl=US
No doubt, your phone is always with you.

Whether at a protest, a polling place or on the go, the ACLU's free Mobile Justice smartphone application allows users to:

RECORD encounters with public officials and law enforcement while streaming to your closest contacts and your local ACLU;
REPORT any abuse by authorities to the ACLU and its networks; and
EMPOWER yourself with up-to-date information regarding your rights as well as important actions and happenings in your area.

I got it just for the STFU advice.

You may also want to know your rights against search. (see below)

At the very least, learn to lock an iphone quickly by pressing and holding the power button and volume button(s), which are opposite each other. Whether or not you shut down or use the emergency function, a password login is required.

This is the "below" part:
A warrant is required to search your phone, like your home and home contents.
https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
A 2014 Supreme Court ruling. Remember to GOTV if you want any rights at all!!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216821536

but the issue of forced decryption ( "look at the phone, use your fingerprints, hand over your password" ) is still "out there" even if every ruling I have heard of has gone against forced decryption (IANAL!)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-the-police-arrest-me-can-search-cell-phone.html

IN ANY EVENT, I recommend a very long password, even if you use biometric ID, because upon restart, it is required, and (this is important) most phone-cracking tools take exponentially longer to crack the contents of the phone if it is seized with every extra letter or number in your password.

Again, IANAL, but a password is generally considered "intellectual property" subject to more protection than biometric ID. And, it's harder to coerce, especially if your phone is not shut down, requiring a password login, if you are unconscious.

Unscrupulous cops? Don't bet your future on it.

Cops have cellphone cracking gear.

I do believe that much of the cellphone evidence collected in the Jan 6 coup attempt has been obtained from recipients of messages, who saved or screen-shot the messages before they were "deleted".

For any more detail, visit EFF's site. https://eff.org -- Electronic Frontier Foundation
I did not reference any law firm's website, though they may provide more detail.

[Zeitghost]

11. Sounds good to me

If you're guilty but get off due to police officers not reading you your Miranda rights, I'm good with that. You get to walk, congratulations it's your lucky day, but I don't want to go crazy and give you a cash jackpot at public expense as well. You retaining your freedom despite committing a crime is more than enough.

This ruling seems fair.

[ancianita]

12. But you have to be able to prove they didn't read your Miranda rights. How can one do THAT part.

[Zeitghost]

13. I can see how that's a problem

But that issue has always existed so I don't see how it's relevant to this ruling.

[ancianita]

14. Okay.

True, it's always existed, but it would well become the usual behavior of police, become so much more a problem than in the past history of police stops, to the point where everyone would have to have some visual proof of the situation so as to defend their due process rights. You'd then have to pay more than ever to gain the legal assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

If police are facing a more heavily armed populace, however, I can see that SCOTUS would try to improve their leverage.