It looks like everyone on our side has forgotten the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that the police or anyone else like waltzing judges do not have to recite Miranda to suspects.
If perps are ignorant of the 5th Amendment, that's their problems.
Justices Narrow Miranda Rule, June 2, 2010
"Criminal defendants must specifically invoke the right to remain silent under the Miranda rule during questioning to avoid self-incrimination, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.
The vote in the case was 5-4 along ideological lines as the court's conservatives put limits on the rights of suspects.
Under the Miranda rule, derived from the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, police may not question a suspect who invokes his right to remain silent—and can't use as evidence incriminating statements obtained after the suspect does so.
Review the cases already decided and still to come in the Supreme Court's 2009-2010 term, plus details on the arguments, the court's calendar, and the justices themselves.
In Tuesday's decision, the court ruled that an ambiguous situation would be treated in favor of the police. "
-end snip-
“2010 Supreme Court ruling that the police or anyone else like waltzing judges do not have to recite Miranda to suspects. “
It does not say that.
You don’t understand what you are reading.