Why do people here care about someone being read their Miranda rights? [Archive]

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:04 PM

affa

04-20-2013, 01:06 PM

More importantly, why would you care about requiring them to be read?

Let's take the case of someone very innocent, who just witnessed a murder/robbery. Let's say he tried to do CPR on the victim, and in the process tossed the gun over to the side. Cops come in, and he says something like 'I tossed the gun over there afterwards.' and they try to use that against him.

Reminding a person they have rights is a very small, but important, step. Is it needed? Certainly not in every case... some people know their rights. But it also can't hurt.

JK/SEA

04-20-2013, 01:07 PM

so what if asserts his right to remain silent anyway?...bullet to the head?

tsai3904

04-20-2013, 01:09 PM

It has to do with the implication that Lindsey wants to treat the suspect as an enemy combatant. He wants the suspect to be held in military custody and possibly without any charges until the military deems fit.

As far as debating giving the Miranda warnings to suspects on its own merit, I'd be interested to hear both sides of the argument.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:10 PM

The script and legislating from the bench.... this was the supreme court acting in its ADMINISTRATIVE role over its 'justice administration', it is a slightly different standard, as flushed out over the years, and less deferential. that is how due process is slightly different for citizens than for foreigners and for administrative and criminal situations... the court came out with a script as black letter the police who are not Constitutional scholars could apply to know they satisfied their duty. In that sense the precise words are artificial, but the elements were taken from case law of minimums of due process.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:11 PM

so what if asserts his right to remain silent anyway?...bullet to the head?

Not that, but I'm not sure if he gets a lawyer, for a period of time, if he asks for one (under NDAA he wouldn't, but I think it is just delayed here). He could just remain silent, but he's injured. I wonder if pain drugs come into play, either administering, or withholding.

Neil Desmond

04-20-2013, 01:11 PM

I get that.

What I don't get is the part about how people have some right to have that read to them.

It seems like a classic case of legislating from the bench.
The way I perceive it is that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a right. Rather, I think that the idea is that if someone isn't informed of relevant rights and they unknowingly waive them (when they probably wouldn't have wanted to do so), then the charges get nullified (Supreme Court "nullification", I guess). I suppose that the idea could be interpreted that by failing to inform them is in itself is an infringement of their rights, given that part of law enforcement carries the responsibility of rights enforcement. Does that help any?

phill4paul

04-20-2013, 01:11 PM

Personally, I view it as a way of reminding L.E.O.s that the person before them is a citizen with certain protections of their natural rights. Not that it shocks them into reality but I don't see any harm in reminding both parties of these protections.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 01:12 PM

Because it's important, especially in a time of stress and/or shock with a huge FORCE breathing down your throat, to be reminded and assured that you are protected by your natural rights in this country. If, only, it we're true, always.

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 01:12 PM

The rights exist even if the person is not reminded of them. That is no guarantee (spontaeous confession, etc., can still be brought in as evidence even if the suspect had not yet been read their rights), but the main point here seems to be to get an injured teenager to tell them everything he could possibly know about others in the area, other plots, etc.. If he makes statements about this case, they aren't likely to be used against him. In fact, they already have a confession from the carjacking victim who says the two guys were bragging about being the bombers. A confession to the police is not likely to be any more or less credible than that. Any lawyer would easily get statements this guy makes related to THIS CASE thrown out. There would still be a pretty good pile of evidence that he did it, though.

Now, statements he gives about OTHER CASES are being sought, not because they want more charges against white-hat; he's already going to be dead or in prison for life. They will be evidence in other cases after other arrests.

The disturbing part of the announcement should be "if we're really sure you did it, we really don't have to respect your rights, because we can just use other evidence to convict you and don't need your own words brought out during 'interrogation'." The possibilities this opens up are downright terrifying.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:13 PM

Also, some are raising the point that the FBI and police announced it was 'all over' and 'all are safe' essentially, and how that plays into whether there is truly remaining risk of the imminent sort to justify the public safety exemption. That I don't know, but it is part of the debate going on.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 01:16 PM

Seriously, I don't get it.

I can't stand Lindsey Graham, and I'm sure their are all kinds of immoral things the government has done in the Boston case, but how could not reading some script to someone be one of them?

Graham and McCain are asking for much, much more.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nn-miranda-boston-bombing-suspect-20130420,0,2852243.story
WASHINGTON -- Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), said Saturday in a joint statement that alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be denied a defense attorney and declared an “enemy combatant.”
(cont at link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ni-nPc6gT4

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:16 PM

I would be in favor of such a warning being given prior to every situation where government forces could conceivably violate a person's rights.

OK.

But that's not the same as saying that failing to give such a warning is in and of itself a violation of any rights.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:16 PM

Miranda rights are incredibly useful in cases such as this. The kids have only been citizens for one year. If they were patsy's in an FBI informant cover up, they especially need to be let known that they don't have to talk if they don't want to.

Maybe.

But there's a difference between what's useful and what's an entitlement.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:18 PM

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

04-20-2013, 01:19 PM

so what if asserts his right to remain silent anyway?...bullet to the head?

Just torture, I think.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:21 PM

The way I perceive it is that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a right. Rather, I think that the idea is that if someone isn't informed of relevant rights and they unknowingly waive them (when they probably wouldn't have wanted to do so), then the charges get nullified (Supreme Court "nullification", I guess). I suppose that the idea could be interpreted that by failing to inform them is in itself is an infringement of their rights, given that part of law enforcement carries the responsibility of rights enforcement. Does that help any?

I don't agree with nullifying charges.

If someone's guilty, they're guilty. They don't become innocent just because the government did something wrong in the investigation. There should be guards against government violating people's rights, but rewarding the guilty shouldn't be among them. The Constitution nowhere suggests that it should be.

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 01:21 PM

But forget any exceptions. Why do you believe there is any such right as the right to be read a Miranda warning in the first place?

There is a right to not self-incriminate. Following from this, there is the honest up-front statement that what you say can and will be used to incriminate you in a court of law. The cops are not there to be your friends. Now, is that statement a right? Not so much. But if they did not tell you the statements would be used against you, then many times those particular statements will be thrown out. Any other evidence not obtained by enticing you to incrimate yourself verbally, and obtained instead by other legal means, still stands.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 01:22 PM

"Your buddy across the hall just confessed and said you were the master mind, your in a lot of trouble, we've got you."

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:23 PM

the main point here seems to be to get an injured teenager to tell them everything he could possibly know about others in the area, other plots, etc.

I have trouble seeing why that's bad.

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 01:24 PM

I have trouble seeing why that's bad.

How do you get him to tell you that? Especially when he's categorized differently than a regular criminal, mind you. What techniques might you use?

kcchiefs6465

04-20-2013, 01:25 PM

I am sorry that reminding someone they have the right to not incriminate themselves is inconvenient to their investigation but so be it.

The rule of law is important. As AF said, I'd be perfectly fine that you be reminded of this in every situation where government forces could conceivably violate a person's rights. Lord knows how many people are sitting in a cell who wished they would have just STFU. I'd add that the job of being a police officer isn't supposed to be easy. Many would like to do away with the Fourth Amendment as well. Hell, some officers might want to limit the First. I've heard about police officers wanting to limit the Second. Reminding someone of their rights is a good thing. Reaffirms that the person isn't just a subject or suspect but that they are a citizen of the United States and that the police are servants for the public. Lord knows they forget that detail every once in a while.

Christian Liberty

04-20-2013, 01:28 PM

Because of NDAA and immediately, Graham (Trotskyite, NC) and McCain (Trotskyite, AZ) jumped to treating him as an enemy combatant. I actually understand IF LIMITED the exception for public safety, but only if really really limited and that 48 hour bit seems too much when a guy is bleeding. Being given your Miranda rights is a reaffirmation that due process is being applied, but I'm sure the guy knows his rights, since he went to so much trouble. It is the NDAA passage showing that Congress is willing to throw the Constitution out the window on this crucial area that is terrifying.

The night before this guy was caught, police scanners and the public were 'sure' it was two totally different guys, a missing Brown student and another guy. Due process lets them say their side of it, and have a trier of fact assess it. What if there actually WAS entrapment? Not that it would justify what they did, to me, but I'd sure want to know what our DHS was doing.

Give an inch, they take a mile. You can't even give them an inch.

But forget any exceptions. Why do you believe there is any such right as the right to be read a Miranda warning in the first place?

Its a positive right, so I don't understand how there can be. Nonetheless, I'm not comfortable giving the cops the right NOT to inform them because its opening the door for abuse.

I don't agree with nullifying charges.

If someone's guilty, they're guilty. They don't become innocent just because the government did something wrong in the investigation. There should be guards against government violating people's rights, but rewarding the guilty shouldn't be among them. The Constitution nowhere suggests that it should be.
I agree, but the violating official should also be executed within 48 hours. For a government official breaking the law in a case like this, I believe the proper penalty is death, or at least something else with serious teeth. THEY should be the ones that have to step on their toes, not us.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:28 PM

There is a right to not self-incriminate. Following from this, there is the honest up-front statement that what you say can and will be used to incriminate you in a court of law. The cops are not there to be your friends. Now, is that statement a right? Not so much. But if they did not tell you the statements would be used against you, then many times those particular statements will be thrown out. Any other evidence not obtained by enticing you to incrimate yourself verbally, and obtained instead by other legal means, still stands.

This.

But I also addressed that in a post I don't think you had gotten to, yet.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 01:31 PM

Does the Miranda decision limit government? Yes? Then what's not to like about it?

This is America. We have traditionally at least tried to pretend to have limited government and treat all citizens equally. Miranda limits government or at the very least serves as a quick reminder to LE that their powers are limited. If it applies to one, it should be applied to all. I can see the exception for questions in the heat of the moment. "Where did you throw that gun just now?" Okay. But outside of that very narrow and limited circumstance, if it applies to one, it applies to all.

Christian Liberty

04-20-2013, 01:32 PM

Give an inch, they take a mile. You can't even give them an inch.

Its a positive right, so I don't understand how there can be. Nonetheless, I'm not comfortable giving the cops the right NOT to inform them because its opening the door for abuse.

I agree, but the violating official should also be executed within 48 hours. For a government official breaking the law in a case like this, I believe the proper penalty is death, or at least something else with serious teeth. THEY should be the ones that have to step on their toes, not us.

For the record, I meant "After being proven guilty" here.

heavenlyboy34

04-20-2013, 01:35 PM

The Founders intended for the people to know the Constitution.

If they don't know it, perhaps it is their fault if they don't know its protections and suffer the consequences.
The founders didn't know there would be police someday. When one is in a panic situation (as in being arrested for no reason, like so many are now), he doesn't always remember his rights.

Now, blaming a person for not knowing for not knowing his rights is a classic case of blaming the victim. If the constitution is worth the parchment it's printed on, it should prevent "authorities" from behaving unlawfully in the first place. There is no real "justice" system in this country. It's a "just us" system. If you're born into the right family or know the right people, you won't have such problems with "law enforcement".

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:36 PM

But if they did not tell you the statements would be used against you, then many times those particular statements will be thrown out.

Why should they be thrown out?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:38 PM

Does the Miranda decision limit government? Yes? Then what's not to like about it?

If the regime in DC gave itself the authority to limit the government of Iraq in a similar way, would you support that?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:39 PM

The rule of law is important.

Not if the law is bad.

Plus, does "rule of law" include laws made up by courts anyway?

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 01:40 PM

If the regime in DC gave itself the authority to limit the government of Iraq in a similar way, would you support that?

If a government gives itself authority, it's authority is not vested in the people, so it's not a limited government.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:42 PM

If a government gives itself authority, it's authority is not vested in the people, so it's not a limited government.

But that's exactly what SCOTUS did in Miranda. They arrogated to themselves the authority over Arizona that you wouldn't allow them to arrogate to themselves over Iraq.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:45 PM

Not if the law is bad.

Plus, does "rule of law" include laws made up by courts anyway?

When they are acting as the administrators of their 'department' yes, they are the say on the rules. This one is precise because police needed something they could apply without understanding the full legal principles. The principles are the actual law, but the Miranda warning PROTECTS POLICE from later having cases thrown out and getting sued if they follow it.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:47 PM

But that's exactly what SCOTUS did in Miranda. They arrogated to themselves the authority over Arizona that you wouldn't allow them to arrogate to themselves over Iraq.

It wasn't over Arizona, it was definition of what constituted 'due process' under the Constitution.

Whether the Constitution applies to states (the courts say it does, under the 14th etc, of course) is a different debate.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:48 PM

When they are acting as the administrators of their 'department' yes, they are the say on the rules. This one is precise because police needed something they could apply without understanding the full legal principles. The principles are the actual law, but the Miranda warning PROTECTS POLICE from later having cases thrown out and getting sued if they follow it.

But the whole thing about throwing out cases is another creation of SCOTUS that shouldn't exist.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 01:49 PM

But that's exactly what SCOTUS did in Miranda. They arrogated to themselves the authority over Arizona that you wouldn't allow them to arrogate to themselves over Iraq.

Arizona is not Iraq. Arizona applied for statehood in 1912.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:49 PM

But the whole thing about throwing out cases is another creation of SCOTUS that shouldn't exist.

That's your opinion. It is only one way of doing it, I agree, and that is why I think Gitmo etc could have a slightly different rule and still be within due process, a rule specifically protective of due process, but in a military or other setting But we don't have that rule to discuss, this is the rule that exists.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:50 PM

It wasn't over Arizona, it was definition of what constituted 'due process' under the Constitution.

Whether the Constitution applies to states (the courts say it does, under the 14th etc, of course) is a different debate.

It was over Arizona.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:50 PM

It was over Arizona.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

No, it applied to all states, and federal, it was a definition of due process. the case just came up in Arizona.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 01:54 PM

No, it applied to all states, and federal, it was a definition of due process. the case just came up in Arizona.

Well, right. I mean it was over Arizona and every other state in the process.

kcchiefs6465

04-20-2013, 01:56 PM

Not if the law is bad.

Plus, does "rule of law" include laws made up by courts anyway?
Do you consider a ruling that requires the police to remind people of their right to not self-incriminate as bad?

The rule of law includes any just law. There are laws that I certainly do not agree with and consider them to be illegitimate. I disregard them with no second thought or consideration and am willing to accept the consequences should I be caught. I will also proclaim to anyone who will listen that said law is bullshit, no one was harmed, and remind people of the upcoming police state A literal police state, as it is already fairly ridiculous.

It seems that the issue of reading him his Miranda rights (reminding him of being able to remain silent and affirming that he can talk to an attorney) is mainly because it inconveniences the police. Good. Having to get a warrant is inconvenient as well, and we see how much they bend that one.

sailingaway

04-20-2013, 01:59 PM

Well, right. I mean it was over Arizona and every other state in the process.

but the Supreme Court does interpret the standards for due process under the Constitution. The throwing evidence out just happened to be the tool they had available. If legislature offered a different tool, they might possibly say it was acceptable. They want the rule enforced to protect the innocent.

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 02:11 PM

Why should they be thrown out?

Ignorance of my right to remain silent. Belief that the police would keep my confidence. Any number of reasons.

Bruno

04-20-2013, 02:15 PM

The Founders intended for the people to know the Constitution.
.

Public education has almost ensured that no longer is the case,

Dr.3D

04-20-2013, 02:18 PM

Public education has almost ensured that no longer is the case,

In public education, the U.S. Constitution is a piece of paper under some glass and needs to be protected as an artifact.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 02:20 PM

But the whole thing about throwing out cases is another creation of SCOTUS that shouldn't exist.

Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court making a ruling that effects state and local courts and in turn state and local LE, the press is reporting that this kid will likely be charged with federal crimes very soon. How could you think that a federal court decision should not be applicable toward a federal investigation and prosecution?

anaconda

04-20-2013, 02:29 PM

I would be in favor of such a warning being given prior to every situation where government forces could conceivably violate a person's rights.

That would be cool. Maybe a robo call announcing false flag operations.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 03:36 PM

Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court making a ruling that effects state and local courts and in turn state and local LE, the press is reporting that this kid will likely be charged with federal crimes very soon. How could you think that a federal court decision should not be applicable toward a federal investigation and prosecution?

Fair enough.

But it's still a wrong decision.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 03:37 PM

Ignorance of my right to remain silent. Belief that the police would keep my confidence. Any number of reasons.

I don't see any connection between those things and throwing out evidence of someone's guilt.

enhanced_deficit

04-20-2013, 03:43 PM

Seriously, I don't get it.

I can't stand Lindsey Graham, and I'm sure their are all kinds of immoral things the government has done in the Boston case, but how could not reading some script to someone be one of them?

I question his motivation for selectively discarding rule of low considering his dubious track record of supporting invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, children under the bogus freedom scam. His complete disregard for safety of public there and this call here may not have been entirely racially motivated but why he didn't make same call when dangerous and crazy Ohio school shooter TJ Lane was arrested few weeks ago?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 03:49 PM

I question his motivation for selectively discarding rule of low considering his dubious track record of supporting invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, children under the bogus freedom scam. His complete disregard for safety of public there and this call here may not have been entirely racially motivated but why he didn't make same call when dangerous and crazy Ohio school shooter TJ Lane was arrested few weeks ago?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in defended Graham.

enhanced_deficit

04-20-2013, 03:54 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in defended Graham.

My argument above I think can stand on its own even without considering my dislike for him. I see no good coming out of a neocon calling for reduced rights for some accused Americans based on xyz. Such dpuble standards in foreign policy are the reason US is where it is today, this just a small glimpse of his foreign policy neoconish mindset being applied in the US. In practical it probably makes little difference in the outcome of the case but Lindsey raised his hand to be criticized imo.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 03:58 PM

Seriously, I don't get it.

I can't stand Lindsey Graham, and I'm sure their are all kinds of immoral things the government has done in the Boston case, but how could not reading some script to someone be one of them?

Read Justice Marshall's dissent in Quarles v New York for a description of the real problem here, or give me an hour to get on a computer and post more here.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 04:00 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in defended Graham.

The Fed's reported plans to interrogate this kid without Miranda rights is separate from what Graham is advocating. The real question here, imo, isn't reading a script to this kid before interrogation. The question is, IF they get an immediate and complete confession before reading him his rights, there's the possibility that confession would be inadmissible during a trial. The Feds know this and seem unconcerned. Why? Is that an indication they have no intention of trying this kid but instead intend to NDAA him as Graham has suggested? Do they intend to declare him an enemy combatant, deprive him of a lawyer, and ship him off to Gitmo indefinitely without a trial? In my opinion, that's the real concern.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 04:01 PM

The question is, IF they get an immediate and complete confession before reading him his rights, there's the possibility that confession would be inadmissible during a trial.

But such a confession shouldn't be inadmissible. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says it should be.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 04:05 PM

But such a confession shouldn't be inadmissible. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says it should be.

It's the Due Process clause proscription against coerced confessions. Brown v Mississippi, and Chambers v Florida.

enhanced_deficit

04-20-2013, 04:07 PM

But such a confession shouldn't be inadmissible. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says it should be.

I think problem here is selective reading of laws/Constituional rights. Constituion does not allow armed government agencies to be entering and searching poeples homes without warrants, but that happened on massive scale in Boston yesterday. Constitution probably calls for impeachment of Lindsey Graham but that's a whole different topic. It was a very interesting exercise in showing that with the right amount of fear, people can be made to give so many of their rights in the name of "security".

But courts often throw out confessions obtained under duress. I don't think such calls are in violation of the Constitution.

Also RockEnds makes a very valid point.

angelatc

04-20-2013, 04:09 PM

No, it applied to all states, and federal, it was a definition of due process. the case just came up in Arizona.

But was it a definition of due process, or was it legislating from the bench?

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 04:09 PM

But such a confession shouldn't be inadmissible. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says it should be.

If this is a Federal case, I still don't understand why you don't believe the Supreme (federal) Court can't make rules for the admission of evidence. I don't see how it violates the Constitution. You might make that argument when it's applied to state courts, but surely federal courts can decide what evidence will or will not be admitted.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 04:11 PM

Read Justice Marshal's dissent in Quarles v New York for a description of the real problem here, or give me an hour to get on a computer and post more here.

I found information on the case, but not the text of Marshall's dissent.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 04:13 PM

But was it a definition of due process, or was it legislating from the bench?

Legislating from the bench, of course. The problem for liberty here, is that the Quarles case not only undid the Miranda case, but went further. Right before Miranda, there was substantial protection against coercion. Since Quarles, even the pre-Miranda protections were reduced.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 04:14 PM

If this is a Federal case, I still don't understand why you don't believe the Supreme (federal) Court can't make rules for the admission of evidence. I don't see how it violates the Constitution. You might make that argument when it's applied to state courts, but surely federal courts can decide what evidence will or will not be admitted.

By saying you don't see how it violates the Constitution, you're turning the tables.

It's the court that has said that admitting wrongly acquired evidence does violate the Constitution. And I'm saying it doesn't.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 04:14 PM

I found information on the case, but not the text of Marshall's dissent.

Still on my phone. I'll do a thorough post in 20 minutes.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 04:20 PM

By saying you don't see how it violates the Constitution, you're turning the tables.

It's the court that has said that admitting wrongly acquired evidence does violate the Constitution. And I'm saying it doesn't.

I'm not trying to turn the tables. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. If the Supreme Court should not decide what evidence is admissible or not admissible in court, who do you think should make that determination?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 04:35 PM

I'm not trying to turn the tables. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. If the Supreme Court should not decide what evidence is admissible or not admissible in court, who do you think should make that determination?

I'm not saying they shouldn't decide what evidence is admissible. I'm saying they shouldn't be wrong about it.

If they say there's something in the Constitution that makes any evidence inadmissible, they're wrong about that.

Brett85

04-20-2013, 04:36 PM

Does the Miranda decision limit government? Yes? Then what's not to like about it?

It doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution.

Brett85

04-20-2013, 04:49 PM

On the other hand, since the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land, it has to be applied and applied evenly to all U.S citizens.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 04:49 PM

I'm not saying they shouldn't decide what evidence is admissible. I'm saying they shouldn't be wrong about it.

If they say there's something in the Constitution that makes any evidence inadmissible, they're wrong about that.

I want to make sure I understand your argument. You're saying that you believe it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the government should be able to bring any and all evidence, however obtained, against any citizen without restriction?

LibertyRevolution

04-20-2013, 04:51 PM

How would you like to be drugged or water-boarded for 48hours before they let you see a lawyer...
It is going to set a very bad precedent if they handle this wrong.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 05:03 PM

The problem I see is with the Quarles ruling (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13717772316457971707&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3) itself, not just its application today. In the Quarles case, Justice Marshall explains:

Miranda v. Arizona was the culmination of a century-long inquiry into how this Court should deal with confessions made during custodial interrogations. Long before Miranda, the Court had recognized that the Federal Government was prohibited from introducing at criminal trials compelled confessions, including confessions compelled in the course of custodial interrogations. In 1924, Justice Brandeis was reciting settled law when he wrote: "[A] confession obtained by compulsion must be excluded whatever may have been the character of the compulsion, and whether the compulsion was applied in a judicial proceeding or otherwise." ...

Prosecutors in state courts were subject to similar constitutional restrictions. Even before Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), formally applied the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the States, the Due Process Clause constrained the States from extorting confessions from criminal defendants. Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936). Indeed, by the time of Malloy, the constraints of the Due Process Clause were almost as stringent as the requirements of the Fifth Amendment itself. ...

When Miranda reached this Court, it was undisputed that both the States and the Federal Government were constitutionally prohibited from prosecuting defendants with confessions coerced during custodial interrogations. As a theoretical matter, the law was clear. In practice, however, the courts found it exceedingly difficult to determine whether a given confession had been coerced. Difficulties of proof and subtleties of interrogation technique made it impossible in most cases for the judiciary to decide with confidence whether the defendant had voluntarily confessed his guilt or whether his testimony had been unconstitutionally compelled. Courts around the country were spending countless hours reviewing the facts of individual custodial interrogations. ...

Miranda dealt with these practical problems. After a detailed examination of police practices and a review of its previous decisions in the area, the Court in Miranda determined that custodial interrogations are inherently coercive. The Court therefore created a constitutional presumption that statements made during custodial interrogations are compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment and are thus inadmissible in criminal prosecutions. As a result of the Court's decision in Miranda, a statement made during a custodial interrogation may be introduced as proof of a defendant's guilt only if the prosecution demonstrates that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights before making the statement. The now-familiar Miranda warnings offer law enforcement authorities a clear, easily administered device for ensuring that criminal suspects understand their constitutional rights well enough to waive them and to engage in consensual custodial interrogation.

In fashioning its "public-safety" exception to Miranda, the majority makes no attempt to deal with the constitutional presumption established by that case. The majority does not argue that police questioning about issues of public safety is any less coercive than custodial interrogations into other matters. The majority's only contention is that police officers could more easily protect the public if Miranda did not apply to custodial interrogations concerning the public's safety. But Miranda was not a decision about public safety; it was a decision about coerced confessions. Without establishing that interrogations concerning the public's safety are less likely to be coercive than other interrogations, the majority cannot endorse the "public-safety" exception and remain faithful to the logic of Miranda v. Arizona.

CPUd

04-20-2013, 05:05 PM

The Fed's reported plans to interrogate this kid without Miranda rights is separate from what Graham is advocating. The real question here, imo, isn't reading a script to this kid before interrogation. The question is, IF they get an immediate and complete confession before reading him his rights, there's the possibility that confession would be inadmissible during a trial. The Feds know this and seem unconcerned. Why? Is that an indication they have no intention of trying this kid but instead intend to NDAA him as Graham has suggested? Do they intend to declare him an enemy combatant, deprive him of a lawyer, and ship him off to Gitmo indefinitely without a trial? In my opinion, that's the real concern.

The purpose of the provision for interrogating him unwarned is in the interest of public safety. if there is imminent danger, like some bombs set all over the city, or some others involved who are planning on doing another bombing, the provision is to specifically interrogate the suspect about that. Their intent is not to get a confession about what happened Monday, but if he offers one up in the process, it "can't not be inadmissible"

AGRP

04-20-2013, 05:10 PM

Seriously, I don't get it.

You've been here for 6 years with 15k+ posts and you still don't get it? Maybe Im not understanding your question. Theres been times when no one understood mine.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:16 PM

I want to make sure I understand your argument. You're saying that you believe it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the government should be able to bring any and all evidence, however obtained, against any citizen without restriction?

Yes.

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 05:18 PM

Yes.

They probably should have phrased that amendment about evidence-gathering differently, then.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:19 PM

You've been here for 6 years with 15k+ posts and you still don't get it? Maybe Im not understanding your question. Theres been times when no one understood mine.

What do you think Ron Paul's position would be on that? From everything I've ever read from him, I wouldn't expect him to agree with the Miranda decision. He might, I honestly don't know. I think Judge Napolitano probably does. If you think there's some obvious reason that Ron Paul would, please share.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 05:19 PM

Yes.

Including threats, coercion, torture, false claims, etc...?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:20 PM

They probably should have phrased that amendment about evidence-gathering differently, then.

Which one?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:22 PM

Including threats, coercion, torture, false claims, etc...?

Yes. Evidence is evidence. Where in the Constitution is there any suggestion that evidence wrongly obtained should be suppressed?

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 05:23 PM

The purpose of the provision for interrogating him unwarned is in the interest of public safety. if there is imminent danger, like some bombs set all over the city, or some others involved who are planning on doing another bombing, the provision is to specifically interrogate the suspect about that. Their intent is not to get a confession about what happened Monday, but if he offers one up in the process, it "can't not be inadmissible"

I understand both what they're claiming and what Graham and McCain are advocating. But, and it's a big but, how much time should expire before one would reasonably reach the conclusion that these two didn't plant bombs somewhere that would present an imminent danger to the public? LE is lacking logic in this case, imo. Yesterday, it was imperative to place a large urban area under para-military control--for public safety, of course. Why was that necessary on April 19 but not on April 15 near the site of the bombing? This public safety excuse just isn't cutting it in a consistent fashion. It seems to be applied more as a matter of convenience than one of consistent concern. There is a presumption of guilt in this case that is really frightening. Personally, I think this case is the perfect case to limit the powers of government as strictly as possible. Maybe they got their guys. Maybe they didn't. Someone somewhere needs to be breathing down their necks making sure that they mind their P's and Q's. Instead, irresponsible legislators are calling for the Constitution to be sh**canned.

From my perspective, the most imminent danger to the public comes not from these two men who have been killed and captured, but from those calling for this case to be an exception to the rule of law.

jmo

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 05:25 PM

Yes.

Well then, it's no surprise you disagree with the Miranda decision.

AGRP

04-20-2013, 05:27 PM

Yes. Evidence is evidence. Where in the Constitution is there any suggestion that evidence wrongly obtained should be suppressed?

The 4th Amendment?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:28 PM

Well then, it's no surprise you disagree with the Miranda decision.

There are things that make some evidence worth less than other evidence, and some evidence totally worthless, and I could see it being inadmissible for that reason.

A confession made under torture just to stop the torture is useless. But if a guy is tortured and says where a bomb is hidden, and then you go and find a bomb there, he shouldn't have been tortured, but if the bomb is there, that's evidence that should be admissible. The penalty against those who tortured the guy shouldn't involve him getting a freebie.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:29 PM

The 4th Amendment?

Here it is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Whatever you're talking about in there, I don't see it.

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 05:30 PM

Yes. Evidence is evidence. Where in the Constitution is there any suggestion that evidence wrongly obtained should be suppressed?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is no "or else" tacked on to these, but it is obvious that seizing someone's property is a no-no without a justified warrant and compensation, just as you have the right to a speedy trial, due process, etc.. If you are going to argue that these amendments don't actually say items seized without due process are to be excluded at trial, then I guess we just read it utterly differently. It would make trials just about impossible. It would turn into a months-long accusationfest, which generally goes against speedy trials in general.

CPUd

04-20-2013, 05:31 PM

I understand both what they're claiming and what Graham and McCain are advocating. But, and it's a big but, how much time should expire before one would reasonably reach the conclusion that these two didn't plant bombs somewhere that would present an imminent danger to the public? LE is lacking logic in this case, imo. Yesterday, it was imperative to place a large urban area under para-military control--for public safety, of course. Why was that necessary on April 19 but not on April 15 near the site of the bombing? This public safety excuse just isn't cutting it in a consistent fashion. It seems to be applied more as a matter of convenience than one of consistent concern. There is a presumption of guilt in this case that is really frightening. Personally, I think this case is the perfect case to limit the powers of government as strictly as possible. Maybe they got their guys. Maybe they didn't. Someone somewhere needs to be breathing down their necks making sure that they mind their P's and Q's. Instead, irresponsible legislators are calling for the Constitution to be sh**canned.

From my perspective, the most imminent danger to the public comes not from these two men who have been killed and captured, but from those calling for this case to be an exception to the rule of law.

jmo

The guidelines don't seem to give a length of time, just that they have asked all pertinent questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html

The strongest thing they have right now (that has been made public) is the eyewitness who's in the hospital, especially if he has visually confirmed the ID of the suspect.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 05:31 PM

But that's exactly what SCOTUS did in Miranda. They arrogated to themselves the authority over Arizona that you wouldn't allow them to arrogate to themselves over Iraq.

so.. you are denying that the federal Bill of Rights legitimately applies to the States?

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 05:36 PM

so.. you are denying that the federal Bill of Rights legitimately applies to the States?

Is there a question as to whether the States agreed to a common Federal Constitution? (Not pointed at you).

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 05:37 PM

This thread is starting to remind me of mind masturbation.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:41 PM

There is no "or else" tacked on to these, but it is obvious that seizing someone's property is a no-no without a justified warrant and compensation, just as you have the right to a speedy trial, due process, etc.. If you are going to argue that these amendments don't actually say items seized without due process are to be excluded at trial, then I guess we just read it utterly differently. It would make trials just about impossible. It would turn into a months-long accusationfest, which generally goes against speedy trials in general.

I didn't see anything in there about suppressing evidence.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 05:45 PM

I didn't see anything in there about suppressing evidence.

Miranda was a fairly recent court decision, but the rules of evidence presented in court go back to English Common Law. The Constitution is a short document. Courts existed in this country before 1787.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 05:46 PM

("I want to make sure I understand your argument. You're saying that you believe it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the government should be able to bring any and all evidence, however obtained, against any citizen without restriction?") Yes.

... the imperative of judicial integrity. It was of this that Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis so eloquently spoke in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, at 469, 471, more than 30 years ago. "For those who agree with me," said Mr. Justice Holmes, "no distinction can be taken between the Government as prosecutor and the Government as judge." (Dissenting opinion.) "In a government of laws," said Mr. Justice Brandeis, "existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." (Dissenting opinion.)

This basic principle was accepted by the Court in McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332. There it was held that "a conviction resting on evidence secured through such a flagrant disregard of the procedure which Congress has commanded cannot be allowed to stand without making the courts themselves accomplices in willful disobedience of law." Even less should the federal courts be accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold. -- Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206 - Supreme Court 1960 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7615115154500936383&q=imperative+of+judicial+integrity&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5)

The admission in court of unconstitutionally obtained evidence undermines the very rule of law.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:46 PM

so.. you are denying that the federal Bill of Rights legitimately applies to the States?

That depends. The 1st Amendment positively protects the right of the states to establish religions while it prohibits the federal government from doing it. Other amendments are more general.

Even to the extent that some of the Bill of Rights do apply to the states, they still don't give the federal government any power to make the states comply, at least not until the 13th Amendment and following.

But more to the point, whether state or federal, I don't see anything in the Constitution that supports the suppression of wrongly obtained evidence. I think you have to have some kind of living document conception of the Constitution to see that there.

AGRP

04-20-2013, 05:46 PM

This thread is starting to remind me of mind masturbation.

This thread reminds me that its 4/20. I dont get it.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:47 PM

-- Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206 - Supreme Court 1960 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7615115154500936383&q=imperative+of+judicial+integrity&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5)

The admission in court of unconstitutionally obtained evidence undermines the very rule of law.

Oh, I know full well that there are plenty of court rulings that disagree with me. I don't hold them in especially high regard.

The date of that one is interesting. If it's in the Constitution, why did it take so long for anyone to see it there?

I don't see anything about admitting unconstitutional evidence that undermines the rule of law.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 05:50 PM

Miranda was a fairly recent court decision, but the rules of evidence presented in court go back to English Common Law.

Source?

I thought that only started in the 20th century.

ETA: Here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

The history goes back into the 19th century. But the crucial case was in 1914.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 05:51 PM

The guidelines don't seem to give a length of time, just that they have asked all pertinent questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html

The strongest thing they have right now (that has been made public) is the eyewitness who's in the hospital, especially if he has visually confirmed the ID of the suspect.

They have pieces of the bombs and backpacks and two suspects. They should have fingerprints and possibly DNA evidence. They may be able to make their case without a confession if, indeed, these two are responsible. I still think it's important to preserve the integrity of our form of government.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 05:51 PM

Source?

I thought that only started in the 20th century.

wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_%28law%29

Anti Federalist

04-20-2013, 05:53 PM

Yes. Evidence is evidence. Where in the Constitution is there any suggestion that evidence wrongly obtained should be suppressed?

Because wrongly obtained evidence, if used, provides no punative action to prevent government from wrongfully obtaining it, and using it, again.

Anti Federalist

04-20-2013, 05:54 PM

///

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 05:56 PM

I would consider protecting the innocent a greater goal than prosecuting the guilty, in the matter of prosecutions.
I think that one of the founders stated something like that in the past.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:01 PM

wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_%28law%29

That's a long article. Which part supports what you were saying?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:03 PM

Because wrongly obtained evidence, if used, provides no punative action to prevent government from wrongfully obtaining it, and using it, again.

Do you think that suppressing evidence is punitive against whoever violated the Constitution in obtaining it? I don't.

The government agents who violate peoples' rights should be punished, absolutely. I see no connection between that and suppressing evidence.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:03 PM

I would consider protecting the innocent a greater goal than prosecuting the guilty, in the matter of prosecutions.
I think that one of the founds stated something like that in the past.

I agree.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 06:08 PM

Oh, I know full well that there are plenty of court rulings that disagree with me. I don't hold them in especially high regard.

The date of that one is interesting. If it's in the Constitution, why did it take so long for anyone to see it there?

I don't see anything about admitting unconstitutional evidence that undermines the rule of law.

When you admit unconstitutional evidence, you "breed disrespect for law, as well as for those charged with its enforcement." Haynes v. Washington, 373 US 503 - Supreme Court 1963. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=767396539067411329&q=haynes+v+washington&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5)

I'm citing the Court because I agree with its reasoning, not because I assume it has legal authority. If you doubt the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution, I'm with you.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 06:09 PM

That's a long article. Which part supports what you were saying?

What part are you questioning? That we had courts before 1787, that Common Law was and is a part of those courts, or that we didn't have rules of evidence until the 20th century? I'm not even sure what you were asking.

Try this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Initial_reception_of_English_common_law _into_new_colonies.2C_and_adoption_of_common_law_o n_decolonization

If it doesn't answer your question, please elaborate on what you wanted a link for.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 06:10 PM

Do you think that suppressing evidence is punitive against whoever violated the Constitution in obtaining it? I don't.

The government agents who violate peoples' rights should be punished, absolutely. I see no connection between that and suppressing evidence.

Then, do I have a right not to be tortured to get possible evidence from me, in your eyes?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:17 PM

When you admit unconstitutional evidence, you "breed disrespect for law, as well as for those charged with its enforcement."

It seems to me that there are other better ways of actually punishing those charged with the law's enforcement when they violate the law than suppressing evidence. It's not like our options are either do that or nothing at all.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:17 PM

Then, do I have a right not to be tortured to get possible evidence from me, in your eyes?

Yes, you do. And especially so if you're actually innocent.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:18 PM

What part are you questioning?

The part about how wrongly obtained evidence was inadmissible under English Common Law, or under the original US Constitution.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 06:19 PM

Yes, you do. And especially so if you're actually innocent.

Who decides if I'm innocent before or during trial?

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 06:19 PM

It seems to me that there are other better ways of actually punishing those charged with the law's enforcement when they violate the law than suppressing evidence. It's not like our options are either do that or nothing at all.

Individuals charged with the law's enforcement are not punished when the court refuses to hear evidenced not properly obtained. Individual citizens are protected by the exclusion of such evidence.

juleswin

04-20-2013, 06:21 PM

I care about reading Mirranda right to people because one it costs nothing to do and it protects citizens from the heavy hand of the state

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 06:21 PM

The government agents who violate peoples' rights should be punished, absolutely.

I agree, and I'd like to help with that.

Do you think that suppressing evidence is punitive against whoever violated the Constitution in obtaining it? I don't.

The government agents who violate peoples' rights should be punished, absolutely. I see no connection between that and suppressing evidence.

There's this:

Society, rather than the individual officer, should accept the responsibility for inadequate training or supervision of officers engaged in hazardous police work. What THE CHIEF JUSTICE wrote, some two decades ago, remains true today:

"It is the proud claim of a democratic society that the people are masters and all officials of the state are servants of the people. That being so, the ancient rule of respondeat superior furnishes us with a simple, direct and reasonable basis for refusing to admit evidence secured in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Since the policeman is society's servant, his acts in the execution of his duty are attributable to the master or employer. Society as a whole is thus responsible and society is `penalized' by refusing it the benefit of evidence secured by the illegal action. This satisfies me more than the other explanations because it seems to me that society — in a country like ours — is involved in and is responsible for what is done in its name and by its agents. Unlike the Germans of the 1930's and early '40's, we cannot say `it is all The Leader's doing. I am not responsible.' In a representative democracy we are responsible, whether we like it or not. And so each of us is involved and each is in this sense responsible when a police officer breaks rules of law established for our common protection." Burger, Who Will Watch the Watchman?, 14 Am. U. L. Rev. 1, 14 (1964) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
-- footnote 28 in Justice Stevens' opinion in United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 - Supreme Court 1984 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12950573209015417232&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=2,5#r[73])

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 06:25 PM

It seems to me that there are other better ways of actually punishing those charged with the law's enforcement when they violate the law than suppressing evidence. It's not like our options are either do that or nothing at all.

So, someone violates my rights during an investigation. Should any "evidence" be admissible?

It's like what is going on in lots of places, both philosophically and physically, in that, what is obtained is kept regardless of how it was obtained, because after the fact it already was. (take the Israeli/Palestinian or American/Indian conflict, as well as evidence as an example). I think that not doing these things in the first place is the absolute correct answer, but what is the solution, after the fact (or not)?

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:28 PM

Who decides if I'm innocent before or during trial?

Nobody. If you didn't do it, then you're innocent.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:29 PM

There's this:

Society, rather than the individual officer, should accept the responsibility for inadequate training or supervision of officers engaged in hazardous police work.
-- footnote 28 in Justice Stevens' opinion in United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 - Supreme Court 1984 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12950573209015417232&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=2,5#r[73])

So you agree with the part I bolded?

I sure don't.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 06:31 PM

I think that not doing these things in the first place is the absolute correct answer, but what is the solution, after the fact (or not)?

Charge the police with false imprisonment, or assault and battery, or breaking and entering, or whatever applies to whatever they did.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 06:31 PM

The part about how wrongly obtained evidence was inadmissible under English Common Law, or under the original US Constitution.

What I said was that the court has always (well, from time immemorial) determined what evidence will and will not be admissible, and the fact that the court has rules of evidence goes back before the Constitution. You were saying that you thought Miranda was legislating from the bench. But defining the rules of evidence has been a matter for the court for a very long time. If you want a history of confessions given under duress and US law, here's one:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/confession

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 06:33 PM

Is there a question as to whether the States agreed to a common Federal Constitution? (Not pointed at you).

There's a longstanding question as to whether the federal Bill of Rights applies to the States.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 06:35 PM

Charge the police with false imprisonment, or assault and battery, or breaking and entering, or whatever applies to whatever they did.

Again, that is after the fact. Too late, I'm scared for life, have been tortured, falsely accused, etc...
And yet again, should any of the evidence that was obtained under duress/torture be admissible? If so, I may not be able, from prison, to prosecute the police for false imprisonment.

ClydeCoulter

04-20-2013, 06:44 PM

There's a longstanding question as to whether the federal Bill of Rights applies to the States.

I don't understand how that can be. The Declaration of Independence set to tone for our existence separate from England. The States agreed to a form of federal government, then later a slightly enhanced version of it in the Constitution (edit: with the stipulation that the BOR be added). What's the question?

MelissaWV

04-20-2013, 06:48 PM

I think I will just back this the hell up, and answer the OP's question.

Why do I care about someone being read their Miranda rights?

I would like them read to me if I were arrested.
I would like a family member to have a reminder of those rights, particularly my mother or father who aren't exactly the most educated when it comes to such things.
I would like the same set of circumstances and rules applied to someone being arrested for a bombing that would have been applied in 2000.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 06:48 PM

So you agree with the part I bolded?

Society is obliged to hold law-enforcement officers accountable for their misconduct. If society fails, it should accept responsibility for the repercussions.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 06:56 PM

I don't understand how that can be. The Declaration of Independence set to tone for our existence separate from England. The States agreed to a form of federal government, then later a slightly enhanced version of it in the Constitution (edit: with the stipulation that the BOR be added). What's the question?

There's no question that the Bill of Rights limits actions of the Federal Government, but it used to be assumed that the Bill of Rights provided no limitations on State actions. During the 20th century, the Supreme Court gradually ruled that the Bill of Rights limited the States too.

Anti Federalist

04-20-2013, 07:05 PM

Do you think that suppressing evidence is punitive against whoever violated the Constitution in obtaining it? I don't.

The government agents who violate peoples' rights should be punished, absolutely. I see no connection between that and suppressing evidence.
You don't think there would be no dis-incentive to obtain evidence however government felt like it, if they, government, knew that it would not be thrown out?

If that is what you think, I disagree.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:11 PM

Society is obliged to hold law-enforcement officers accountable for their misconduct. If society fails, it should accept responsibility for the repercussions.

Society is made up of individuals. And that's where real obligations and accountability exist.

Furthermore, the government is not society and doesn't really represent society.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:11 PM

You don't think there would be no dis-incentive to obtain evidence however government felt like it, if they, government, knew that it would not be thrown out?

If that is what you think, I disagree.

There's some disincentive, but it's not really punitive.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:15 PM

What I said was that the court has always (well, from time immemorial) determined what evidence will and will not be admissible, and the fact that the court has rules of evidence goes back before the Constitution. You were saying that you thought Miranda was legislating from the bench. But defining the rules of evidence has been a matter for the court for a very long time. If you want a history of confessions given under duress and US law, here's one:

My argument wasn't about the very existence of rules of evidence, it was about the interpretation of the Constitution in Miranda.

The link you gave only further supports what I said that the exclusionary rule is mainly a 20th century (or at least late 19th century) invention. The framers of the Constitution did not have it in mind.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:17 PM

Again, that is after the fact.

All crimes are prosecuted after the fact.

The suppression of evidence in a trial is also after the fact.

Anti Federalist

04-20-2013, 07:18 PM

Charge the police with false imprisonment, or assault and battery, or breaking and entering, or whatever applies to whatever they did.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m03dutXOzM1qbxmbeo1_500.gif

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:20 PM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m03dutXOzM1qbxmbeo1_500.gif

Why is suppressing evidence better than that?

Peace&Freedom

04-20-2013, 07:24 PM

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 07:25 PM

My argument wasn't about the very existence of rules of evidence, it was about the interpretation of the Constitution in Miranda.

The link you gave only further supports what I said that the exclusionary rule is mainly a 20th century (or at least late 19th century) invention. The framers of the Constitution did not have it in mind.

The framers didn't have in mind that I would have the right of suffrage. That was changed with the ratification of the 19th amendment. The framers did have in mind a form of government that could be responsive to the advancement of liberty. Some issues are legislative matters. This is a judicial matter. The court found that in order to protect individual rights, certain types of evidence would not be admitted. I see no Constitutional problem with that finding. It limits government. It promotes individual liberty. Yay.

jmdrake

04-20-2013, 07:25 PM

I get that.

What I don't get is the part about how people have some right to have that read to them.

It seems like a classic case of legislating from the bench.

I suppose I don't have as much of an aversion to "legislating from the bench" as do some. Many of our most precious rights derive from English common law, in other words "bench" made law. The idea that the burden of proof is on the government in a criminal case and it must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" is found nowhere in the text of the U.S. constitution. I think it would be a sin and a shame to say "Well....since it's not in the text of the constitution so let's just ignore it."

Also remember the 9th amendment reserves rights to the people. The ninth amendment was put into the constitution precisely because the founders didn't want someone saying later "Well...it can't possibly be a right because the founders didn't explicity say it that way."

Now back to Miranda, but look at it from the opposite point of view. If we want a government that's as generous in granting of rights as possible, how could it possibly hurt to use the Miranda rule in this case? Okay, if the police question the kid without reading him his rights and what he says during that questioning period isn't admissible, what then? Does that mean he walks? Well.....no. No more than if he just thinks about his Miranda rights and keeps his mouth shut or says "I want to talk to an attorney." All of the evidence against him, that most people think makes him guilty anyway, is still available. It's not like this kids going to walk.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:28 PM

My take is that while some modern inventions of the justice system work against the Bil of Rights and constitutional protections, Miranda actually seems to follow from the constitutional intent to protect the accused, regardless of it not being specifically instituted by the Founders. The fact that its application is being eroded is evidence that those protections (both original, and new) are part of the march to tyranny that is the War on Terror.

I probably agree with that.

But I'm not comfortable with opposing that erosion by appealing to the Constitution and then forcing myself to adopt a living document view of the Constitution in order to do it. And I also don't think approaching the issue on more basic moral or natural-law principles supports suppressing wrongly obtained evidence.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 07:31 PM

The framers didn't have in mind that I would have the right of suffrage. That was changed with the ratification of the 19th amendment. The framers did have in mind a form of government that could be responsive to the advancement of liberty. Some issues are legislative matters. This is a judicial matter. The court found that in order to protect individual rights, certain types of evidence would not be admitted. I see no Constitutional problem with that finding. It limits government. It promotes individual liberty. Yay.

Again, you're flipping around the question of where there's a constitutional problem. It's not that I'm saying there's a constitutional problem with reading someone their rights. It's that the court determined there was a constitutional problem with admitting evidence obtained without doing that. And in making that determination, the court was wrong about what's in the Constitution.

RockEnds

04-20-2013, 07:38 PM

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 07:46 PM

Society is made up of individuals. And that's where real obligations and accountability exist.

Furthermore, the government is not society and doesn't really represent society.

Perfect justice is impossible. There will always be collateral damage.

It seems to me that there are other better ways of actually punishing those charged with the law's enforcement when they violate the law than suppressing evidence. It's not like our options are either do that or nothing at all.

Your position, then, is rely on the DOJ to prosecute its own for their misconduct?

Neil Desmond

04-20-2013, 07:49 PM

Again, you're flipping around the question of where there's a constitutional problem. It's not that I'm saying there's a constitutional problem with reading someone their rights. It's that the court determined there was a constitutional problem with admitting evidence obtained without doing that. And in making that determination, the court was wrong about what's in the Constitution.
Is there anything in the US Constitution that gives law enforcement the right or power to interrogate a suspect?

Not sure if this has been addressed, but what I'm curious about is since Miranda warning is supposed to protect law enforcement efforts, and part of the ruling is that there are exceptions, does that mean that they can interrogate a suspect and use that evidence against them? That seems to imply that a suspect's rights to remain silent doesn't count, somehow. Does the fact that there are exceptions to the ruling mean that they in fact don't have the right to remain silent, even if the suspect is aware of what's in the US Constitution?

Another thing I'm curious about is if there are exceptions to the Miranda rule, has it been used before? Do, or can, law enforcement utilize this exception when it comes to gang members, the mafia, illegal aliens flowing into the country (if someone decides that this is an economic national security issue), rioters, union thugs bullying scabs, civil disobedience special interest groups & protesters, people with mental illnesses, residents who aren't citizens, ex cons, former or retired military, Occupy Wall Street attendees, or any other group or reason for claiming public safety or national security, or whatever?

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 07:52 PM

I suppose I don't have as much of an aversion to "legislating from the bench" as do some. Many of our most precious rights derive from English common law, in other words "bench" made law. The idea that the burden of proof is on the government in a criminal case and it must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" is found nowhere in the text of the U.S. constitution. I think it would be a sin and a shame to say "Well....since it's not in the text of the constitution so let's just ignore it."

The Constitution provides for its own Amendment, so we could Amend it to incorporate good ideas from the Supreme Court, without allowing the Court its current unbridled authority.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 08:02 PM

Your position, then, is rely on the DOJ to prosecute its own for their misconduct?

Yes. And here, it really is about rule of law. They are not above the law.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 08:04 PM

I disagree. I think the ruling in Miranda was consistent with the power that has been vested in the judiciary previous to the Constitution. Again, we're back to rules of evidence, and that has been a matter left to the court since before the King spoke French.

I appreciate this way of looking at it.

A lot of the rhetoric I have seen paints it as a constitutional issue.

jmdrake

04-20-2013, 08:22 PM

The Constitution provides for its own Amendment, so we could Amend it to incorporate good ideas from the Supreme Court, without allowing the Court its current unbridled authority.

Except A) in the case of Miranda rights that's not "unbridled authority", B) the amendment process is arduous and C) the 9th amendment indicates that the founders didn't want the bill of rights looked at as an exaustive set of rights.

jmdrake

04-20-2013, 08:43 PM

I appreciate this way of looking at it.

A lot of the rhetoric I have seen paints it as a constitutional issue.

It's not either or.

erowe1

04-20-2013, 08:45 PM

It's not either or.

Well, then I'll put it this way. The constitutional rhetoric is the part I'm most uncomfortable with.

RonPaulMall

04-20-2013, 09:21 PM

Not sure if this has been addressed, but what I'm curious about is since Miranda warning is supposed to protect law enforcement efforts, and part of the ruling is that there are exceptions, does that mean that they can interrogate a suspect and use that evidence against them? That seems to imply that a suspect's rights to remain silent doesn't count, somehow. Does the fact that there are exceptions to the ruling mean that they in fact don't have the right to remain silent, even if the suspect is aware of what's in the US Constitution?

Another thing I'm curious about is if there are exceptions to the Miranda rule, has it been used before? Do, or can, law enforcement utilize this exception when it comes to gang members, the mafia, illegal aliens flowing into the country (if someone decides that this is an economic national security issue), rioters, union thugs bullying scabs, civil disobedience special interest groups & protesters, people with mental illnesses, residents who aren't citizens, ex cons, former or retired military, Occupy Wall Street attendees, or any other group or reason for claiming public safety or national security, or whatever?

The public safety exception to the Miranda is about a situation in which what you say can be used against you despite the fact you haven't yet been read your rights and are in situation where Miranda would otherwise apply. It has no bearing on your ultimate right to remain silent. You can (and should) always exercise that right as soon as a government official asks to talk to you whether you have been read your rights or not.

As far as the public safety exception being used, yes, it has, but the scope of it is pretty narrow. The original case that established it was a suspected rapist who was chased down and when the police caught him they saw he had an empty holster on him and immediately asked him where the gun was before bothering to Mirandize him. That is the type of thing we are talking about here.

The Miranda rule isn't all that important, and it is judge made law, so I'm not all that passionate about it. People hate Graham because his opposition to these guys being read their rights isn't really about Miranda but rather stems from the fact he's opposed to all Constitutional Rights, whether judge made or not, from the most trivial to the most vital.

I'd happily scrap Miranda warnings for a rule where any police interrogation has to be video recorded. That is where the real abuse occurs- after you waive your rights and start talking and they lie about what you said.

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 11:31 PM

... your ultimate right to remain silent. You can (and should) always exercise that right as soon as a government official asks to talk to you whether you have been read your rights or not.

With psychiatrists, it is perilous to invoke your right to remain silent. If you remain silent with a psychiatrist, you will be accused of exhibiting a dangerous "lack of insight" into your alleged "condition". You will be accused of exhibiting a dangerous "lack of insight" into your alleged "need for treatment".

I'd happily scrap Miranda warnings for a rule where any police interrogation has to be video recorded. That is where the real abuse occurs- after you waive your rights and start talking and they lie about what you said.

My experience:

THE COURT: ... I am toying with the idea of having an evaluation. ... Are you with me so far?

THE DEFENDANT: I hear you.

THE COURT: I know you hear me. Are you going to cooperate with the evaluation?

THE DEFENDANT: Please clarify what you mean by "cooperate".

THE COURT: Answer the doctor's questions, not be obstructive, be free, open.

THE DEFENDANT: ... generally that would be my intent. Let me -- but to that I would add, that's on the condition that my discussion with the psychiatrist could be tape recorded for the sake of creating an objective record in case -- an objective record that would prevent any disputes from even arising over as to the words that were exchanged between --

THE COURT: My guess is no psychiatrist is going to agree to that.

...

THE DEFENDANT: This tape recorder thing is real important to me, and I'll tell you why, because in the past, these psychiatrists, some of these psychiatrists have asked me for bribes, which I refuse to pay, and that was a single instance. That's not, like, happening every time, but what's happened a lot, is that my statements have been misrepresented. It's too easy for me to say one thing and a psychiatrist, either because of incompetence or some -- any other reason, a psychiatrist can too easily write down that I've said something [different]. There is no witness to controvert his allegations if he misrepresented my statements. He can make anyone look like an idiot or a lunatic. A tape recorder is a simple device that could keep everyone honest....

THE COURT: If the doctor agrees to have a recording, I don't care, frankly, but it's between you and the doctor, frankly. ... I'll be careful how I say what I'm going to say. One of the issues that appears to me, okay, I'm just sort of -- believe it or not, I'm sort of an outsider looking in. You seem to want to control everything that's going on, and when one's on supervised release, that's not the way it is. Other people have control. -- transcript (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5ZYXb_HdIQhdFBxeVYtRG5DVDQ/edit?usp=sharing), pages 45 - 48

And here is Loughner's judge denying a similar request for videotaping of custodial interrogations (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5ZYXb_HdIQhckJSdENVNTducVE/edit?usp=sharing).

better-dead-than-fed

04-20-2013, 11:41 PM

Your position, then, is rely on the DOJ to prosecute its own for their misconduct?

Yes. And here, it really is about rule of law. They are not above the law.

And when the DOJ refuses to prosecute its own, and they do so in plain sight ("DOJ Invites Agents To Commit Perjury") (https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ftf3Dpi4JM5ZJ3iiAyCmPZV4S_TENZYHaCK0ouIvP4/edit?usp=sharing), what then?

bolil

04-20-2013, 11:47 PM

I don't care because it doesn't matter, their being recited has nothing to do with the existence of the rights there in. If someone is ignorant enough not to know their rights, that is their business. What I take issue with is the fact that the cops and PTB are trying to paint there disregard of rights as legitimate because, "we are not reading him his rights." Give a shit, no cop read me my right to free speech yet here I speak freely,

heavenlyboy34

04-21-2013, 12:05 AM

WhistlinDave

04-21-2013, 12:31 AM

I get that.

What I don't get is the part about how people have some right to have that read to them.

It seems like a classic case of legislating from the bench.

I can see both sides of the argument; people should know their rights and shouldn't need them read to them. On the other hand, considering how frequently police abuse their power, if we're going to make an error either way I'd rather err toward the side of caution. Make 'em read 'em their rights every time.

I don't like the term "legislating from the bench," however. Our Founding Fathers wisely set up a multi-branch system of governance with checks and balances put in. When a court issues a decision that strikes down a law as unconstitutional, they are doing their job. The courts are there so that people who have grievances can get justice, and if an injustice is committed because of a law or regulation that is inconsistent with the highest law of the land, then it needs to be struck down by the court.

Now -- that's not to say there aren't a lot of bad court decisions made. But next time you hear one where you say to yourself, "Well thank goodness the Supreme Court got this one right!" Stop for a moment and ask yourself, would you be inclined to use the term "legislating from the bench"? Probably not. That's a term we use when the court does something we disagree with. But either way, it is their job to provide these checks and balances against the legislative and executive branches.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Miranda rights.

erowe1

04-21-2013, 05:45 AM

And when the DOJ refuses to prosecute its own, and they do so in plain sight ("DOJ Invites Agents To Commit Perjury") (https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ftf3Dpi4JM5ZJ3iiAyCmPZV4S_TENZYHaCK0ouIvP4/edit?usp=sharing), what then?

We really need multiple DOJ's capable of prosecuting one another.

Obviously, none of them should be tax funded.

erowe1

04-21-2013, 05:47 AM

They also never envisioned the existence of police. If we get into "original intent" debates, we get back to the citizenry and militamen enforcing the law instead of unelected, unaccountable police.

Good.

Now let's say we did that. And let's say citizen A acquired evidence of citizen B's crime wrongfully. Do you think the proper way to deal with that would be to exclude that evidence from being used in trying to figure out if citizen B is guilty? Or would punishing citizen A for his crime and citizen B for his be more appropriate?

erowe1

04-21-2013, 05:48 AM

When a court issues a decision that strikes down a law as unconstitutional, they are doing their job.

That's debatable.

jmdrake

04-21-2013, 06:01 AM

Well, then I'll put it this way. The constitutional rhetoric is the part I'm most uncomfortable with.

Well let's put it another way. You seem to have a problem with the Court taking its traditional (and proper IMO) role of intepreting the constitution. Okay. So in your mind what does the "right not to testify against oneself" mean in terms of a pre-trial interrogation? Nothing? Here is a hypothetical. Say if police lie to a suspect and say "Actually you have no right to remain silent. Those rights were suspended by an act of congress. Now tell us what we want to know." Is that a violation of rights? Note that police are allowed to lie in interrogations about all sorts of other stuff. The police can tell you that they've caught your partner and he's already making a deal so you need to come clean so they can offer you a deal for example. They can make all sorts of promises to you that they have no intention of keeping. And sometimes these interrogations have led to provably false confessions. Consider the interrogation of Michael Crowe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp1LVciP2c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJcqjPxtIXc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMTz7J_qN00

Neil Desmond

04-21-2013, 06:14 AM

The public safety exception to the Miranda is about a situation in which what you say can be used against you despite the fact you haven't yet been read your rights and are in situation where Miranda would otherwise apply. It has no bearing on your ultimate right to remain silent. You can (and should) always exercise that right as soon as a government official asks to talk to you whether you have been read your rights or not.

As far as the public safety exception being used, yes, it has, but the scope of it is pretty narrow. The original case that established it was a suspected rapist who was chased down and when the police caught him they saw he had an empty holster on him and immediately asked him where the gun was before bothering to Mirandize him. That is the type of thing we are talking about here.

The Miranda rule isn't all that important, and it is judge made law, so I'm not all that passionate about it. People hate Graham because his opposition to these guys being read their rights isn't really about Miranda but rather stems from the fact he's opposed to all Constitutional Rights, whether judge made or not, from the most trivial to the most vital.

I'd happily scrap Miranda warnings for a rule where any police interrogation has to be video recorded. That is where the real abuse occurs- after you waive your rights and start talking and they lie about what you said.

What about this (video) as a reason?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Falcon63

04-21-2013, 06:36 AM

PaulConventionWV

04-21-2013, 06:49 AM

I get that.

What I don't get is the part about how people have some right to have that read to them.

It seems like a classic case of legislating from the bench.

It's not a right. It's an obligation on government. Nobody is trying to give people the right to have something read to them. Miranda rights simply take away government's power to use deceptive and coercive techniques without giving prior warning. Anything that checks government power, I am for. As long as we have a police force, I see it as no affront to liberty to have them recognize every individual's right to fight them and win.

Neil Desmond

04-21-2013, 06:55 AM

We really need multiple DOJ's capable of prosecuting one another.

Obviously, none of them should be tax funded.
Why do you claim that it is obvious that none of them should be tax funded? It isn't to me - and I'm not saying that it isn't obvious to anyone else. If the issue is a conflict of interest regarding making people pay taxes, why couldn't other DOJ's prosecute each other for resolving that dilemma? If the issue is that you're just opposed to paying taxes, then given that not everyone is opposed to paying taxes, it would not be obvious for that reason. If that's the case, though, how do you want to fund these DOJ's, with tariffs?

Some food for thought related to this: in a way we either do already have, or could have multiple DOJ's. We or ought to have the "DOJ's" for each State. Each state also has its own courts & supreme courts, so it seems to me that those could be an option if there is a question of confidence or integrity in the federal court system. What a "DOJ" of one State can or ought to be able to do is go to a court of a different State (or maybe a special panel made up of judges or justices from multiple States could be formed on a case-by-case basis) in order to prevent a single State from dominating a situation with its own potentially conflicting agenda. There's a lot more to this, but I don't want to get into the details on this thread.

Neil Desmond

04-21-2013, 06:56 AM

It's not a right. It's an obligation on government. Nobody is trying to give people the right to have something read to them. Miranda rights simply take away government's power to use deceptive and coercive techniques without giving prior warning. Anything that checks government power, I am for. As long as we have a police force, I see it as no affront to liberty to have them recognize every individual's right to fight them and win.
Exactly.

PaulConventionWV

04-21-2013, 07:00 AM

OK.

But that's not the same as saying that failing to give such a warning is in and of itself a violation of any rights.

Who is saying that? Miranda rights (not the right to be read rights, but the reading of the actual rights) protect a lot of people from being falsely imprisoned. I don't care how dumb they are not to know their own rights, but I would not want them to be falsely thrown imprison because of a bogus confession.

PaulConventionWV

04-21-2013, 07:25 AM

If the regime in DC gave itself the authority to limit the government of Iraq in a similar way, would you support that?

You're going to have to explain to me how imposing your rules on another nation is the same thing as limiting your own government.

PaulConventionWV

04-21-2013, 08:26 AM

It seems to me that there are other better ways of actually punishing those charged with the law's enforcement when they violate the law than suppressing evidence. It's not like our options are either do that or nothing at all.

How about both? If we allow evidence gathered via inadmissible means, then there is always a motive for people and police to obtain such evidence if they think they can get away with it. If it's such a bad thing to let a criminal go because evidence against him was inadmissible, then why not simply obtain the evidence through valid and admissible means? What I'm saying is, what's the harm in making certain evidence inadmissible?

If evidence is gained via invalid means, then it is my opinion that such evidence poisons the well when it comes to valid evidence. It seems to me there's no reason why we should allow evidence that is inadmissible if it may conceivably influence the case in such a way that a legitimately innocent person be jailed. I err on the side of freedom, and the fact that it serves as a powerful deterrent against the government's ability to prosecute people in this day and age is just a huge bonus.

PaulConventionWV

04-21-2013, 08:50 AM

Why is suppressing evidence better than that?

Maybe because one of the core tenets of liberty is that it is better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one man to be falsely imprisoned and/or executed?

Neil Desmond

04-21-2013, 09:40 AM

Maybe because one of the core tenets of liberty is that it is better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one man to be falsely imprisoned and/or executed?
I think that the principle in question is the same one that has to do with torturing people to "force a confession" out of them. What good is a "confession" under duress? It might be that what a suspect said isn't true, and they only said it because they were threatened or to make the pain stop. Because of this, what they say is in a manner of speaking, "invalid" even if they're telling the truth; that is one reason that it should not be admissible in court. Other reasons I can think of is that a person being accused might not be of sound mind or is trying to take the blame for a friend or loved one, especially if they might get into more trouble (e.g., switching seats for too many DUIs, etc.). Basically, only a victim or witness ought to be pointing out who the perp is.

erowe1

04-21-2013, 02:51 PM

Well let's put it another way. You seem to have a problem with the Court taking its traditional (and proper IMO) role of intepreting the constitution. Okay. So in your mind what does the "right not to testify against oneself" mean in terms of a pre-trial interrogation? Nothing? Here is a hypothetical. Say if police lie to a suspect and say "Actually you have no right to remain silent. Those rights were suspended by an act of congress. Now tell us what we want to know." Is that a violation of rights? Note that police are allowed to lie in interrogations about all sorts of other stuff. The police can tell you that they've caught your partner and he's already making a deal so you need to come clean so they can offer you a deal for example. They can make all sorts of promises to you that they have no intention of keeping. And sometimes these interrogations have led to provably false confessions. Consider the interrogation of Michael Crowe.

I think those circumstances definitely diminish the value of those confessions.

But that doesn't mean that everything said in those interrogations, along with every other piece of evidence discovered as a result of those things, should be suppressed. If someone in an interrogation like that says where they buried a body and the police go find the body there along with other proof that the accused was guilty, they shouldn't have to pretend that none of that evidence exists just because the suspect wasn't read Miranda rights or something like that.