Posted on 04/25/2009 1:04:36 PM PDT by Bush Revolution
The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested. They argue that the benefits are “meagre,” as the Telegraph puts it:
The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups. …
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.
The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be “represented by counsel”, but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to “protect the adversary process” in a criminal trial.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
So you believe everything the state claims? Read the petitioner’s brief. Paints an entirely different picture. Cops lie all the time.
Was Jackson, black ???
What will President Obama use as an excuse for this ???
I merely demonstreated the absurdity of your request by asking another absurd question. Personally, I am all for statutes outlawing illegal drugs, and have never, ever used an illegal drug.
You read something into my question that wasn't there. Maybe you need to take a class in rules of construction; a primary one being a person should not read words into or out of the language presented.
Why this case? This move seems to come out of nowhere, and begs the “what is he really after?”
Can’t have all these pesky civil/constitutional rights getting in the way of Amerikan Marxism now can we????
And as far as GWB, I can't think of anything he did that was so inconsiderate of Americans' rights but if he had done this, there would literally be riots or at least huge violent protests all over the news.
He would have been attacked from all angles because this would be a real setback to civil rights and Bush is a Republican.
Congress, the press, academia would have waged a massive political attack insinuating that he was fascist and didn't care about the poor and their problems. He would be called unfeeling and out of touch, undemocratic, misguided and stupid, full of racism and out of his mind.
That's what they would say and much of it applies to Obama but he won't experience that kind of heat.
The professional hate-mongers own the press and they are creatures of the left.
Even though I supported Bush on many fronts, I would never have backed giving the police the right to question without counsel president. In retrospect, it's a law that is really a logical extension of the Bill of Rights. I've become much more libertarian in my views in the last few years, insofar as they don't overwhelmingly compromise our personal and national security.
One, this would make suppression of the opposition much more effective.
Two, the overwhelming loser in this, at least in the short term, is the black male, given arrest rates, legitimate or not.
And I think it's a good ruling. It helps to protect against self incrimination.
Corrupt or overzelous cops can take too much advantage without this law. Look who controls the Federal authorities and tell me this isn't troubling.
Obama is not American in spirit. He's a red diaper baby, raised by ultra-leftists and communists like Frank Marshall Davis.
Yes, it all sounds crazy and paranoid but he acts so much like a communist central planner.
He embraces the Russians and Hugo Chavez, not to mention pushes for a lift on certain aspects of the embargo on Cuba. He fires the head of GM and pushes for control of private banks.
This guy doesn't respect the presidency or the Constitution. That's safe to say unequivocally. No president should bow low to a monarch. No president should be trying to deprive us of our rights.
Can Joe ask for an attorney at this point, prior to blowing into any machine?
Uh huh.
You read something into my question that wasn't there. Maybe you need to take a class in rules of construction; a primary one being a person should not read words into or out of the language presented.
Oh, you mean like judicially created “prophylactic rules” that are not in the Constitution?
Be curious to see where in the Bill of Rights it says criminals can't be questioned unless in the presence of a lawyer, and why did it take until 1986 for someone to spot that critical passage?
Can you show me where that is?
All I can find is yet another plainly-worded Amendment, the Sixth, which provides for a speedy trial, etc., and "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
“Can Joe ask for an attorney at this point, prior to blowing into any machine?”
Under current law, Yes!
Under current law, Yes!
I was just talking to my son about this and he says 'no'. He says when you get your driver's license you give up the right to an attorney when you get pulled over and are asked to take blow into the machine. He says the decline is an admission of guilt.
Yes, you have to blow in the road-side machine or do the field sobriety test.
That happens BEFORE you are arrested. The thing is, those road-side machines aren't accurate enough to stand up in court.
Once you get to jail you will be questioned and ask to blow in the calibrated machine or go to have blood drawn.
At that point you have the right to advice of an attorney and can answer every question...”I don't understand my rights and want to speak with an attorney.”
The cops can get a judge to issue a court order to have blood drawn but that also takes time.
The cops can't do anything unless you agree, or they have a court order from a judge.
You admitted no guilt and you refused nothing. The only thing you did was exercise your legal right to advice of counsel.
It's not your problem that your BAL will go down in the hour or so that it takes to get an attorney or a court order.
The problem is that cops arrest people for being over, or close to, a magic number that they pulled out of their a$$, that has no bearing on being drunk.
.05 isn't drunk or anything close to it but that is the number they use now.
Curioser and curioser..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.