Justices Ban Double-Questioning Strategy

[jayfish]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5317194/

<SNIP>
The Supreme Court warned police on Monday to stop using a strategy intended to extract confessions from criminal suspects before telling them of their right to remain silent.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said that deliberately questioning a suspect twice — the first time without reading the Miranda warning — is usually improper.

Criminal defense attorneys and civil libertarians had complained that strategy was being used to get around the Supreme Court’s landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling, which requires that suspects in custody be told they have the right to remain silent.
</SNIP>

This is a good decision but can anyone figure out what the hell is going on with the court? How does this jive with the "Yarborough v. Alvarado" case that was just decided this month? This court seems to have a severe personality disorder.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/8813885.htm?1c

NOTE: To view the full text of this story, search google news using "Yarborough v. Alvarado" as your search string. Click the link to the Philly Inq. story.


<SNIP>
WASHINGTON - A sharply split Supreme Court said yesterday that police did not always have to give juveniles the famous Miranda warnings before questioning them, handing an important but narrow victory to law enforcers.

The court said a Los Angeles County sheriff's detective did not violate a 17-year-old's constitutional rights when she questioned him for two hours at a police station before advising him of his right to end the interview or have a lawyer present.
<SNIP>

WTF?????

Jay

Edited For Content.

[Dookus]

1. This is confusing...

as best as I can tell, the difference in Alvarado was that he wasn't in custody - he was being questioned. Of course, the minority held that being questioned in a police station is a form of custody, and I agree with them.

But I *THINK* the distinction was that he wasn't technically in custody or under arrest. The ruling today, as far as I can see, refers to people arrested and in custody.

[jayfish]

2. When I Was In The Police Academy We Were Told Consider...

any person being questioned (regardless of venue)as under arrest.

Jay

[Dookus]

3. and I wish that were always the standard

but clearly, it isn't.

Nonetheless, it seems the recent rulings don't really undermine Miranda for people who've been arrested.

[jayfish]

4. Is There Even A Standard Anymore?

It seems to be left up to the discretion of the interviewing/arresting/questioning/interrogating authority. Another thing that bothers me about the decision is that the court says that these tactics are "usually improper". Well what are the unusual circumstances that deem the practice proper, and who set(s) them. Do we need another court case to decide that?

Jay

[jarab]

5. And if one being questioned politely asked to leave -

and was refused - would that be considered (then) as being "under arrest"? Just curious.
...O...

[jayfish]

6. Oh... I Would Say That Definitely Falls Into...

the under arrest category. The logic, however, was that a person being questioned by a law enforcement authority would have no expectation that they could even ask such a question. Therefore to eliminate any chance of misunderstanding the person being questioned was to be considered under arrest. One thing to think of though is that this was in an an academic setting rather than with a specific PD. Actual policy from dept. to dept. my have differed.

Jay