Elie Mystal: The Supreme Court Strips Us of Miranda Warnings

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Elie Mystal
@ElieNYC
·
Follow
The conservative Supreme Court has revoked Miranda warnings. According to them, you still have constitutional rights, just no right to know what those rights are.
My latest in @thenation

thenation.com
The Supreme Court Strips Us of Miranda Warnings
Today, Justice Alito ruled that you have constitutional rights but no right to know what they are.
11:41 AM · Jun 23, 2022

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-miranda-rights/

No paywall
https://archive.ph/cHGRQ

In 1966, the Supreme Court created the now famous “Miranda warnings” in the seminal case Miranda v. Arizona. The Constitution had arguably always protected the right against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment, but the white men who wrote the Constitution never provided practical protections of that right. In Miranda, Earl Warren invented, out of whole cloth, a set of instructions the government would be required to give people in order to protect their rights against self-incrimination, and their right to an attorney (which is found in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution). Everybody has heard of these warnings: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?” Before the decision in Miranda, police would routinely arrest people and bully them into making incriminating statements without allowing them to talk to an attorney. Ernesto Miranda himself was questioned at his home, “voluntarily” taken to the police station, placed in a lineup, and eventually convinced to sign a confession, without ever once talking to a lawyer. The idea was to end the practice of law enforcement tricking people out of their constitutional rights.

Today, 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 them they have a right to make the intimidation stop, there’s 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 Smith’s 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”; they’re just a thing cops can say if they feel like it. If cops violate constitutional rights under the Fifth or Sixth 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 Miranda’s 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 couldn’t 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 people’s 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.

*snip*

[FBaggins]

1. A pretty huge stretch

They didn't "revoke" Miranda.

The primary aspect of the Miranda ruling was never that you could sue a cop who failed to "read you your rights" - it was that evidence gained that way could be thrown out in court. That hasn't changed.

[former9thward]

2. The decision did no such thing.

And section 1983 is NOT the main vehicle to enforce Miranda rights. The main vehicle is the exclusion of evidence obtained before the person is informed of their right to remain silent. The OP link does not know what they are tweeting about.

[Nevilledog]

3. I'm sure the Mr. Mystal, author of a book on the Constitution, would like to hear your take.

[former9thward]

4. No, he wants retweets.

Not accurate information.

[Nevilledog]

5. You're missing the practical implications he talks about, which I agree with.

Taking away the civil protections absolutely affects officer behavior. They've got nothing to keep them from intimidation and gaining false confessions. Cops get overwhelming deference from prosecutors and courts about suspect statements. I dealt with it for 27 years.

I think this is spot on:

The practical effect of this decision will be to unleash already brutal American cops to use even more intimidation and coercion to secure (potentially false) confessions than they already do. Paradoxically, this ruling will do more to deny the constitutional rights of people who are innocent than to infringe those of people guilty of crime. That’s because professional criminals, for the most part, know their constitutional rights. They know they shouldn’t talk to the cops; they know the only word they should say to the police is “lawyer.” You don’t have to tell a street-level drug dealer what to do if he gets held by the cops; he already knows. And you don’t have to tell a banker or a person accused of “white collar” crime what to do either: Those folks have their lawyers on speed dial.

Alito and conservative legal media will hide behind the fact that the Fifth and Sixth amendments still exist. They’ll say people still have the right to remain silent. And that will be true for their rich friends and for people with enough “street smarts” to know how the system works.

He's not the only one (there were lots more, but I limited to verified accounts)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Kagan"s dissent





Maybe your issue is with "gutted" vs. "overturned"?

[Zeitghost]

8. The same person

Tweeted that the ruling on NY State CCW permits gave people the right to shoot others. He has a history of misleading and hyperbolic tweets.

[BradAllison]

6. Aaaaaand on cue....

You must be ecstatic today.

[Sympthsical]

7. Except, you know, it didn't

Did anyone actually read the decision?

I feel like I've read this statement a hundred times in all the knee jerk Twitter hot takes. But it isn't true.