SCOTUS Likely To Overturn Miranda Decision

[Webster]

Talk about giving police a chance to resume browbeating--I mean, interviewing suspects...

Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing

While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for aborti…

thehill.com

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Talk about giving police a chance to resume browbeating--I mean, interviewing suspects...

Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing

While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for aborti…

thehill.com

As it should be this is a states rights issue.

 

[Webster]

As it should be this is a states rights issue.

No, the Court got it right back then. Certain things in the Constitution should never be left to the tender mercies of the states; this is one of them.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

No, the Court got it right back then. Certain things in the Constitution should never be left to the tender mercies of the states; this is one of them.

No, no they didn’t, if it’s not expressly said in the constitution it’s left to the states to decide.

 

[Webster]

if it’s not expressly said in the constitution it’s left to the states to decide.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would like to have a word with you...quoting

The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is an important part of the United States Constitution because it protects certain individual liberties by restricting federal governmental power. The Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination prohibit American law enforcement from compelling people to speak during criminal investigations.

The clause states in part that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themself. This means that a person should not be forced to provide evidence that could incriminate oneself.

--- --- ---

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that any statement made in a custodial interrogation cannot be used against a suspect unless the police informed the suspect of their right against self incrimination.

Miranda warnings have to be given whenever a suspect is interrogated while under arrest. The Miranda case is the origin of the requirement that law enforcement officers must inform people of their “Miranda rights” as part of their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Miranda case changed how interrogations are conducted.

Miranda warnings are generally provided to suspects while they are being arrested, taken into custody, while they are being moved from one location to another, or otherwise deprived of their freedom of action.

Miranda warnings can be given at any time during an interrogation. However, if the suspect indicates that they would like to remain silent or speak with a representative of their choice (typically a lawyer), then law enforcement can no longer question a person about the crime they were arrested for.

Conversely, under Miranda , if a person indicates that they want to waive their right to remain silent, law enforcement can continue questioning until and unless the person clearly requests an attorney.

Miranda applies whether or not it has already been determined that the person is a suspect. By requiring Miranda warnings to be read whenever a person is arrested, the Court intended to prevent police from using coercive tactics to force confessions from suspects in custody.

Arguing otherwise is like cutting your nose off to spite your face; a plain reading of the 5th Amdt. would knock your argument out of the water...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would like to have a word with you...quotingArguing otherwise is like cutting your nose off to spite your face; a plain reading of the 5th Amdt. would knock your argument out of the water...

Your quoting a wrong ruling on something that doesn’t fit the 5th amendment in the least. This about as bad as saying Obama care is constitutional

 

[Webster]

Your quoting a wrong ruling on something that doesn’t fit the 5th amendment in the least.

The right to not self-incrimnate oneself applies just as much to not answering police questions as it does to not being forced to testify in a court so yes, the 5th Amendment does apply there.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The right to not self-incrimnate oneself applies just as much to not answering police questions as it does to not being forced to testify in a court so yes, the 5th Amendment does apply there.

No it doesn’t because there is nothing to suggest “forced” testimony, lol!!!

 

[Webster]

No it doesn’t because there is nothing to suggest “forced” testimony, lol!!!

Care to argue that point?

False and Coerced Confessions, Center on Wrongful Convictions: Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

www.law.northwestern.edu

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Care to argue that point?

False and Coerced Confessions, Center on Wrongful Convictions: Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

www.law.northwestern.edu

That’s just breaking the law, lol!

 

[Webster]

That’s just breaking the law, lol!

By who, the cops?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

By who, the cops?

Any law enforcement. Look I don’t have a problem with the Miranda thing it keeps everything nice and tidy for the courts. But this is a states rights issue on how they arrest someone and the federal government should have no involvement

 

[Webster]

But this is a states rights issue on how they arrest someone and the federal government should have no involvement

No, certain things - like this - should not be left to the tender mercies of 50 differing states.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

No, certain things - like this - should not be left to the tender mercies of 50 differing states.

Yes, yes it is, absolutely nothing in the constitution for this so it’s states rights. Well since they always come up with better ideas then the federal government and states usually take the best ideas and dump the failures from other states it’s going to be the way it. Should be.

 

[Webster]

Well since they always come up with better ideas then the federal government and states usually take the best ideas and dump the failures from other states it’s going to be the way it. Should be.

And sometimes they come up with absolutely horrid ideas, which is precisely why people go to the federal courts 9and the Feds, in general).....

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

And sometimes they come up with absolutely horrid ideas, which is precisely why people go to the federal courts 9and the Feds, in general).....

States have a far, far better track record. With 50 states this gives a opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t

 

[Webster]

With 50 states this gives a opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t

Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. When it doesn't, you take your redress to the feds (remember that right under the 1st Amdt, to petition govt. for redress of differences)....

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. When it doesn't, you take your redress to the feds (remember that right under the 1st Amdt, to petition govt. for redress of differences)....

And we are going to see the conclusion to it very soon. Personally I hope the states don’t change it.

 

[Webster]

And we are going to see the conclusion to it very soon.

We tried that route from 1860-1865 and it didn't work out for the South.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

We tried that route from 1860-1865 and it didn't work out for the South.

Lol! That’s not what I meant. This civil war is going to be completely different and it’s not going to be a north, south thing. Anyways I just meant the court making it’s ruling.