|
AFR Research- All about Miranda
NEW CASELAW Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent By Jesse J. Holland ASSOCIATED PRESS 11:27 a.m., Tuesday, June 1, 2010 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must tell police explicitly that they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down." A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer. The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough. "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Justice Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down." "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded." FULL STORY Got it? You have to SAY "I want to remain silent, and I want a lawyer" August 21, 2008 Case Name: U.S.
v. Craighead, District: 9 Cir , Case #:
07-1-135 As soon as you DEMAND your Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights, CPS will very likely turn it into a "police-dominated" atmosphere. If they brought a cop along, it ALREADY IS a "police-dominated" atmosphere. The police commonly threaten the charge of "interfering with an investigation". The catch is, if there is NO CRIME, there is NO Police investigation. The CPS is there to coerce you to "volunteer" away your (and your children's) Constitutional Rights. The moment you "volunteer", you have surrendered your Constitutional Rights. This is what the Miranda Warning is for, and why you had best just SHUT UP. What you say WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. See What happens in the FOG :: CPS Guts Constitutional Due Process For the KIDS- The Reverse Miranda **Mission*Critical*Need*To*Know*Info** See The
Brochure!
US Constitution Online The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights. Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right. This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. Landmark Supreme Court Cases Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Beyond Miranda In the time since the Miranda was decided in 1966, the Supreme Court has decided several cases directly related to the issues in the Miranda case. Below are brief descriptions of the issues presented to the justices in several of these cases. How would you decide these cases if you were on the Supreme Court? LawInfo.com Miranda Warning Frequently Asked Questions What is a Miranda warning? A Miranda warning advises people of their constitutional right not to answer questions or to have an attorney present before answer any questions. Must a police officer always advise a person of their Miranda rights before asking a question? No. The Miranda warning is only in effect during a "custodial interrogation." This means that the person being questioned is in custody or in an environment in which the person does not believe that he is free to leave.
"Taking the 5th" is NOT just for courtroom drama TV! Nor is it just for slime balls subpoenaed to appear before Congressional Hearings... IT IS FOR YOU!
Know Your CONSTITUTIONAL Rights
June 26, 2000 Supreme Court Upholds Miranda Rights
Juvenile Confessions/Right Against Self-Incrimination KEEP YOUR SECRETS.com POLICE INTERROGTIONS Introduction If you have never been in a Police interrogation....then you have little idea of exactly how intimidating and traumatic they can be. Try remembering how you felt the first time a State Trooper pulled you over for speeding (or whatever) and walked up to you car window to ask for your Driver's License. Chances are your stomach and chest felt tight, your breathing was shallow, your voice tight and nervous. If you knew you were speeding you feared the consequences, and even you weren't speeding...you still felt nervous and upset. If you multiply this by about 10-20 times...you have an idea what a full fledged Police Interrogation feels like. Alabama State Bar What are my rights? (pdf) Excellent article regarding whether you are in "custody" or feel free to leave! The Rights of Citizens in the Criminal Justice Process The criminal justice process is the process by which crimes are investigated, charged, tried, and punished. Because the criminal justice system involves actions by the government against its citizens, the criminal justice process has been the subject of constitutional protections dating back, in the English common law system, to the Magna Carta. Wisconsin Department of Justice Safe Schools Legal Resource Manual QUESTIONING OF JUVENILES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES The following sections pertain to the questioning of juveniles suspected of committing school rule violations and/or crimes. They briefly summarize the relevant legal standards. Law enforcement officers will quickly recognize that the professional standards normally governing criminal investigation and interrogation of adults also apply in situations involving juveniles. However, officers should expect courts to scrutinize the investigative and interview techniques used to obtain information from juveniles closely. Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2001 Boortz.com
Miranda Rights? You Have Got to Be
Kidding Me! Johnny Taliban has a lawyer, paid for by Johnny Taliban's father, of course. Now the lawyer is starting the public relations campaign on behalf of his little terrorist client. We're now hearing his concerns that his client has been interrogated by U.S. officials without having been read his Miranda rights. August 29, 2001 Miranda rights: Do kids get it? By Marie McCain The Cincinnati Enquirer A police officer sits down with a 13-year-old child accused of a serious crime. “You have the right to remain silent,” he begins. “You have the right to an attorney, even if you can't afford one...” Adults are expected to understand their Miranda rights. In Ohio and Kentucky, so are juveniles. But do they? November 2000 Miranda Rights for Florida Voters (comedy- or is it really?) Prior to voting, this warning must be read to every Democrat voter Federal Law Enforcement Training Center - Quarterly Review - THE NEWEST CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT - THE RIGHT TO MIRANDA WARNINGS Until June 26, 2000, a person who was in custody and being subjected to police interrogation did not have a Constitutional right to be given Miranda warnings; Miranda warnings were just the mechanism by which a state or Federal law enforcement officer ensured that the subject of his custodial interrogation knew what his or her rights were before the interrogation began. If a law enforcement officer conducted a custodial interview without first giving Miranda warnings, it was not a Constitutional violation, and so the worst that could happen was the suppression of the improperly obtained statement. Today, because a person in custody has a Constitutional right to be given his Miranda rights, is it possible, even likely, that failure to give a subject Miranda rights will serve as the basis for a Bivens or Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 civil rights claim?
FBI Publications- Intentional Miranda violations may jeopardize cases and expose investigators and agencies to civil suits. May 23, 2000 Concluding that the Union County, N.J., Prosecutor's Office violated a policeman's rights by deliberately failing to issue a Miranda warning before questioning him, a New Jersey appeals court has reversed his sexual assault conviction. About.com Crime and Punishment Updated 04/19/2000 APA Monitor on Psychology March 2000 BY MELISSA RUSSANO AND MARGARET BULL KOVERA, PHD Florida International University The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review whether issuing Miranda warnings to criminal suspects is constitutionally required--a review that could raise empirical questions of interest to research psychologists. ACLU Monday, November 8, 1999 Federal Appeals Court Says Police Interrogation Tactics Violated "Miranda" Rights April 1999 Colorado State Patrol
MIRANDA OVERRULED? -- A STUNNING
COURT DECISION As a result of a decision from a federal circuit court of appeals, the 33-year old Miranda rule may be on its way to the dustbin! March 30, 1999 Calhoun County Courts
Citizens for Police Review CPR-Rights and Responsibilities October 8, 1998 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Rockingham No. 97-073 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. GERALD GOTSCH September 24, 1998 Salon.com Kiss those Miranda rights good-bye By Beverly Gage October 1997 Executive Office for United States Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual 50 Statements Taken From Juveniles Bureau
of Private Investigation The usual issue for investigation is whether the action taken against a person violates any constitutional limitation that protects individual rights. The most widely used Act for civil rights violations for victims of racial or religious discrimination is the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 which provides that: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities served by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. FreeAdvice.com WHAT IF I AM AT SCHOOL AND A SCHOOL OFFICIAL OR TEACHER WANTS TO QUESTION ME ABOUT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. DO THEY HAVE TO ADVISE ME OF MY MIRANDA RIGHTS? No. The higher courts have ruled that school officials, teachers, and counselors do not have to advise you of your Miranda rights before questioning unless they are doing so at the direction of the police. In American society today, you mainly hear about Amendments one, two, and five (the Freedom of the People, the Right to Bear Arms, and the Right to not Incriminate Oneself, respectively). This leaves the other Amendments far from people's minds. What about the 13th Amendment, keeping people from having slaves? What about the Repeal of Prohibition, giving people the right to drink freely? But one of the most ignored Amendments is the sixth, giving rights to people accused of crimes. Well, this poor Amendment is not forgotten completely. |
