Replies

Did the officers act “reasonably”? Did they act in “good faith”? What if the Obama judge is convinced the officers MUST have heard the kid say clearly that there was no danger in relation to the locker, and the judge concludes the cops acted in bad faith by proceeding further themselves.

EACH of the elements of the exception is ammunition for the defense.

Experience teaches that unless one has very strong reasons for doing so, one doesn’t play these things close to the line. There is too much opportunity for things to get unstuck down the line.

I'm just saying, almost every experienced police officer I ever worked with would only Mirandize someone as a last resort. This is because once you do it, a number of legal triggers occur, and you have to dance to a completely different tune. I just don't understand why anyone would want to put up those barriers when it is completely unnecessary, and there is a very strong possibility of getting actionable and legally useful information.

Could a liberal judge disallow it? Maybe. But I don't think we should throw our hands up and Mirandize, and erect a bunch of unnecessary legal barriers just because that's a possibility.

In summary, if you Mirandize this guy now, it is not possible to obtain information that is useful in court, even if he agrees to talk.

If you do not Mirandize him, there is a possibility of obtaining information that is useful in court, which may or may not be thrown out.

I gotta go with the chance over the no chance, and I always did in my 20 years on the force.