Posted on 01/20/2013 6:08:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether a suspect's refusal to answer police questions prior to being arrested and read his rights can be introduced as evidence of guilt at his subsequent murder trial. Without comment, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the December 1992 deaths of two brothers in Houston.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
You are either not paying attention or don’t want to listen.
So the state is arguing that you have no rights until you are told by the state that you have rights. Yea, these are tyrannical times.
Yeah, one would think the Obama/Hillary defense would work for the rest of us. When asked if you know anything about a particular incident or crime...either don’t respond at all or just say “I don’t recall”. Leftism helps.
Good point. While the Court's decision should be obvious, given the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court precedent, it was a bit silly on my part to ignore these interesting times. With the Living Constitution, which means whatever is convenient today, my idealistic response showed a bit more ignorance than is appropriate for someone who has been paying attention. I need to get my head out of the Reagan years and into a much uglier place and time.
More generally, I would suggest that any "consent" citizens give to cops in such situations shall be presumed coerced, absent clear evidence to the contrary (and citizens have the right to have questions of coercion decided by a jury that would be informed that if they find that evidence was obtained through coercion they should not construe it against a defendant).
This rule basically exists. "coerced" statements are excluded from trial via pre-trial motions.
questions made during custody (or the state of "not free to leave" which implies a non-consensual encounter that does not involve being handcuffed) where no advice of rights are given are assumed to be involuntary and also excluded.
The issue boils down to when and why would the 'reasonable person' believes they are not free to leave and that analysis turns on the testimony of the officer and the person charged as to how the encounter transpired.
the uniform itself is found in some jurisdictions to make an encounter custodial unless the officer makes statements which clearly indicate that the encounter is simply and "accosting" with the other party being free to terminate.
the words used by the officer "may I ask you a question" vs a confrontational inquiry such as an immediate question like "how long have you been here" also figure in.
The problem is that most judges see the first question for what it is between two civilians...a request to have an interaction which can be declined.
the reality is that uniforms make people nervous in today's society and even the request to have consensual interaction is intimidating to people who don't know their rights.
The rule shouldn't just apply to statements, but also to things like "consent" for searches. I would posit that in any situation where an officer would be in a position to reward or punish someone who does or does not "consent" to be searched, there is no such thing as a "consensual" search. In some situations, an officer might tell a person that he may either allow the officer to search or be detained while the officer obtains a warrant, but such permission received in such cases should not be considered consent. If sufficient probable cause existed that consent was not needed, such a search would be legitimate. Absent such probable cause, it should be recognized as illegitimate.
What happened to the Constitution? This is unbelievable.
There is much simpler wording in the 2nd Amendment, and yet it gets trampled upon in thousands of ways.
Why anyone would think other civil rights protections would be sacrosanct is a mystery.
>>It is common sense to not talk to police, except in consultation with your attorney, if there is any possibility that the police are looking at charging you with anything.
Actually, the sad reality is that because of overzealous cops and prosecutors out to rack up successful prosecutions instead of administer justice, we have come to the point where you should *never* talk to the police without an attorney. Especially Federal ones. Just ask Martha Stewart, among others.
And let’s go ahead and link the video, in case it hasn’t been done. If it has, it doesn’t hurt to link it again and emphasize that every FReeper should take the time to watch this.
Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1
http://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik
Part 2 is optional, but you really, really should watch Part 1 if you never have.
I agree eberyone should watch it.
You’re welcome, I’m glad I posted it.
Duke lacrosse is another great example of what over zealous members of the so-called justice establishment can do to ruin people’s lives in a full of injustice way.
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.