Exactly!
Exactly.
From what I’ve read from other sources, the case doesn’t change anything about what is admissible in court. It only ruled that you can’t sue for a civil rights violation if they fail to read you your Miranda rights.
I don’t understand how this is a “threat” to the 5th Amendment. This person was not compelled to talk to or give a statement. One has the inherent right to not speak to law enforcement.
🎯👍
There's a difference when you are arresting someone.
Watch vids of defiant, right asserting drivers. Often gets gnarly. Can you do that? Can many others?
Please let me know what the law is. I thought Miranda rights were given only after a person is arrested.
This decision does not "gut" Miranda.
I spent a lot of time teaching this to my children. If any law enforcement officer or government official asks you a question, direct them to your mother or to me. Do not answer the question unless it is a matter of life or death, i.e. which room is the baby in during a fire.
Most hospital employees don’t admit they sexually assaulted women in a hospital. They will be judged in a court that does not recognize Miranda, as will their supporters.
I mean, it's not like it's a secret.
Agreed and that means never, not even when they are not investiagting anything.
Quite correct.
However this was a ruling about a Civil case, not a criminal case. Civil cases usually only involve money, Criminal cases you can lose rights, freedoms, and money (if they can it out of you while you rot in jail.)
Never talk to a cop, without a lawyer present.
More Grifter Pundit trash.
The only thing the court decided today, is that the court made up rule in Miranda (which has as much basis in the Constitution as the made up rule in Roe) is not the basis for a 1983 action.
Nothing more.
NOTHING.
If you are in custody and interrogated without Miranda warnings, the statements won’t come into court.
Miranda rights were not gutted, and Queer Hoft is a liar.
Please, what clap trap sensationalized headline...
All the court ruled was if you aren’t advised of your miranda rights and the cops take your statement and us it later, you can’t sue the cops.
They didn’t gut anything here... If you weren’t told your rights and they take your statement and try to use it in court that’s a mistrial, the statement is inadmissible.
All the court ruled here is you can’t sue the cop... Nothing gutted here.
He could have just said, "Talk to my lawyer....................
Well, and the synopsis is incorrect. This does nothing to undermine Miranda or gut the 5th.
The fact remains that unless you are given your Miranda rights, nothing you say can be used against you in court. Its evidence that is disallowed, even if you confess to murder. Certainly a technicality, but it is the way it is.
The prosecutor should have known that and refused to move forward with the case. This isn’t about whether he was guilty or innocent of the crime. Its about whether he can sue over being tried after winning his trial. You can’t.
But if your defense is successful, who pays for it? Its certainly not cheap to put up a criminal defense and most people don’t have a couple hundred thousand laying around to do it. Are you just screwed?
The Supreme Court informs me to invoke the 5th and remain silent.
From 2013...
<> Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked <>
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled [in 2013] that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3038224/posts
Not what the ruling said. The case was already tossed in the state courts once the Miranda violation voided the evidence. This is solely whether the officer could still be sued for the Miranda violation.