I’m not positive that I’d call this a good one. I’m typically not in favor of expanding police powers at the expense of individual liberty, and this, at first glance, appears to do so.
How is this a federal issue anyway? The original law was federal, so it’s been overturned at the federal level. OK.
But that shouldn’t and doesn’t imply that this issue has been fixed at the federal level. They overturned their own law. Nothing’s stopping each state from having a law that has this same effect.
Should never have been a federal issue, quite possibly, and that seems to be the basis on which they overturned it: “some states do this, some states do that”.
Looks OK to me. I don’t think this expands police power. It appears to just throw out one of three precedents that made the matter more confusing than workable. Under other precedents they still have to stop an interrogation once counsel is requested. Looks like now, they could still use a freely given and uncoerced confession that was not a product of interrogation.
I think.
Er, what do you mean “expanding police powers”? All the Supreme Court did was affirm the existing law. It expands nothing.
In fact, IMHO, it appears this was bogus argument in the first place and should never had been heard. If taken to its logical conclusion, the result would be that anything a defendant says in the absense of an attorney is inadmissable. I would say that would put a serious impediment in the way of convicting admitted felons—you know murderers, child rapists and the like.
I’m curious, Publius, do you think criminal law should err on the side of protecting society or the individual—especially individuals who confess to horrible crimes and then decide to recant on the basis of advice given by a clever lawyer?
Personally, I’m more concerned with what’s going in The Usurper’s administration, with respect to curtailing individual rights, than that frivolous lawsuit.