• The law is changing, and this is big.
    46 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — [B]The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.[/B] The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in "custody" as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him. [B]"Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda,"[/B] Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion. Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners. "Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: `You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,'" Ginsburg said in her dissent. "Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights." Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave. Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff's deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault. Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges. On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling. "Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda," Alito said. Questioning an inmate doesn't bring the "shock" of arrest that free people experience and the coercive pressure that follows, Alito said. There is also no hope for a quick release if the inmate talks to police, like there would be for a free person, and there is also no chance of a lighter sentence or any type of reprisal for not talking because the person is already in prison, Alito said. "Thus, service of a term of imprisonment, without more, is not enough to constitute Miranda custody," Alito said. The majority looked to the wrong question in making its decision, Ginsburg said. "I would ask, as Miranda puts it, whether Fields was subjected to `incommunicado interrogation ... in a police dominated atmosphere,' whether he was placed, against his will, in an inherently stressful situation, and whether his `freedom of action (was) curtailed in any significant way,'" Ginsburg said. "Those should be the key questions, and to each I would answer, `Yes.'" The case is Howes v. Fields, 10-680.[/quote] [url=http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5103761-Court-Rights-dont-have-to-be-read-to-prisoners/] Source[/url] -- I know most of you dont really care but, this is big news. You do not have to be granted your rights in prison if you are being questioned about other crimes you have committed. That means, if you dont know your rights.. you dont get them. No lawyers, no pleading the fifth, etc.
whaaaat
Woah woah What the fuck What does this solve
They were already arrested? So they all should know their rights?
Yeah when you are arrested you are told your.rights, so now they don't have to repeat it I don't see the issue
God damn it. Everyday I'm getting more fearful of my country.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;34812362]Yeah when you are arrested you are told your.rights, so now they don't have to repeat it I don't see the issue[/QUOTE] Before, you had to be read your rights before any interviewing/interrogations. You did it that way because of the victim not knowing that he has the right to stop talking. (this avoids court cases with "I didnt know that.. ") Ex. 1 (from the article) [quote]Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.[/quote]
[video=youtube;IhnUgAaea4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M[/video]
Rated dumb because of the content, not you, OP. This is one of the most pointless laws I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=da bloop;34812378]God damn it. Everyday I'm getting more fearful of my country.[/QUOTE] Do you plan on going to prison? I mean really? Just don't do anything illegal and this doesn't apply to you?
[QUOTE=Squad;34812387]Do you plan on going to prison? I mean really? Just don't do anything illegal and this doesn't apply to you?[/QUOTE] this violation of rights only happens to criminals so let's just ignore it
[QUOTE=Squad;34812387]Do you plan on going to prison? I mean really? Just don't do anything illegal and this doesn't apply to you?[/QUOTE] this is probably the most ignorant view on law ever
Could you change the title to what the article actually is, instead of the stupid attention getter it is now? And as DesolateGrun said: [QUOTE=DesolateGrun;34812362]Yeah when you are arrested you are told your.rights, so now they don't have to repeat it I don't see the issue[/QUOTE] If they're already incarcerated then I don't see a problem. They've heard their rights read, they should know them. As well, they're told they can leave at any time. And now let's see how many people read the two bolded portions, nothing else, and proceed to call for the leveling of the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=da bloop;34812378]God damn it. Everyday I'm getting more fearful of my country.[/QUOTE] Better take up arms and start popping cops like every fearful American does.
[QUOTE=Squad;34812387]Do you plan on going to prison? I mean really? Just don't do anything illegal and this doesn't apply to you?[/QUOTE] That's like saying it was alright for Hitler to kill off Jews, just because it doesn't apply to you. This may be an extreme example but now do you see why that whole "it doesn't apply to me so fuck it" ordeal is so very wrong? It will get to you eventually if you're just going to sit back and shrug it off.
[QUOTE=Fatman55;34812409]this is probably the most ignorant view on law ever[/QUOTE] But he has a point. It doesnt affect you unless you go to prison. But if you do end up in prison, you better know your rights first.
Not planning on going to prison anytime soon, don't give a damn.
[QUOTE=Fatman55;34812409]this is probably the most ignorant view on law ever[/QUOTE] No, the rights of prisoners is important. However, these guys should already know their rights. I do agree that it is pointless to do this, it doesn't hurt anything to read them their rights. Anyways, out of here since people shit storm so quickly.
[QUOTE=LSK;34812427]That's like saying it was alright for Hitler to kill off Jews, just because it doesn't apply to you.[/QUOTE] Mass murder =/= having to repeat your rights to you when they've already done it before.
[QUOTE=The one that is;34812445]Mass murder =/= having to repeat your rights to you when they've already done it before.[/QUOTE] I edited my post.
[QUOTE=LSK;34812427]That's like saying it was alright for Hitler to kill off Jews, just because it doesn't apply to you.[/QUOTE] ... Not even close... It is like saying, people who committed a crime had their rights read to them and went through court and made familiar with what was going on and then sent to prison... Thus, they should know that they are allowed to have a lawyer, they can remain silent if they want to etc etc...
[QUOTE=areolop;34812429]But he has a point. It doesnt affect you unless you go to prison. But if you do end up in prison, you better know your rights first.[/QUOTE] And you do! The guy in this case who confessed before did! He'd been read the very same Miranda rights when he was put into custody! Why should the cops have to repeat all of his rights every time they want to question him? Unless the person has amnesia I don't think they're liable if they don't.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34812472]And you do! The guy in this case who confessed before did! He'd been read the very same Miranda rights when he was put into custody! Why should the cops have to repeat all of his rights every time they want to question him? Unless the person has amnesia I don't think they're liable if they don't.[/QUOTE] If Apple can patent a rectangle with curved corners, inmates will sue the living hell out of departments because they didnt know their rights. Honestly, I would rather have my rights read to me every-time until I request to have them not read anymore just so that I know that I can stop talking.
[QUOTE=Spooter;34812415]If they're already incarcerated then I don't see a problem. They've heard their rights read, they should know them. As well, they're told they can leave at any time.[/QUOTE] Saying "you can leave at any time" isn't the same as telling them "you can leave at any time, and you have the right to remain silent, without any repercussions for doing so." They may as well be saying "you're free to go at any time. But then we'll interrogate you later. And again. And again. And again." And prisoners might assume that they don't have as many rights, since they're in prison, so they need to be reminded that they [I]do[/I] still have rights. For instance, they might assume that they aren't necessarily read their Miranda Rights before an interrogation. But that's just silly.
[QUOTE=Squad;34812457]... Not even close... It is like saying, people who committed a crime had their rights read to them and went through court and made familiar with what was going on and then sent to prison... Thus, they should know that they are allowed to have a lawyer, they can remain silent if they want to etc etc...[/QUOTE] I'm just saying I hate the whole "I don't care if it doesn't involve me" mindset, it's the wrong view to have on things, especially politics.
[QUOTE=CrispexOps;34812422]Better take up arms and start popping cops like every fearful American does.[/QUOTE] Ummm, how does this relate to anything? I'm not saying this supreme court decision turns America into some dystopian nation, but it is a small step in that general direction.
[QUOTE=LSK;34812499]I'm just saying I hate the whole "I don't care if it doesn't involve me" mindset, it's the wrong view to have on things, especially politics.[/QUOTE] And you did so with an analogy that doesn't work. I don't see how we're at fault here.
[QUOTE=da bloop;34812503]Ummm, how does this relate to anything? I'm not saying this supreme court decision turns America into some dystopian nation, but it is a small step in that general direction.[/QUOTE] I was poking fun how every decision made leads to people assuming, "They're going after my freedom!" I hate to break it to you, but we don't really have "freedom." Our "freedom" comes in the form of doing things only if they're regulated heavily by the government. For example: Firearms, drugs, vehicles, homes, your income, gender, political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. All if it is documented in some form or another, and all requires the government knowing every single detail of your life. "Freedom" is thrown around far too much. It's a word that gives people a false sense of stability and peace. If we're so into freedom, why are we so quick to throw working illegal immigrants out? Don't they deserve our "freedom?" No. Becuase they're undocumented. Everything in America is logged and on the record. That's the way it works. Freedom is a piece of political bullshit that is thrown around to try to get us to get involved in other countries' conflicts, and to control the general population. A good example is how people in America still think that Europe is this huge evil place that won't let you read the Bible and won't let you own guns, etc. Because that's all "freedom" really is to an American. The right to pray to whatever god you want, own guns, and voice your unwanted opinion.
To people that say stuff like this doesn't effect them because they don't plan on going to prison: Who does plan on going to prison? You never know where life is going to take you or people you know, so you should be aware about things like this dealing with the law.
To be honest this isn't a big deal as the miranda rights being told to you is a way to bring a person back to reality to make them realise they do have legal rights. If they are already imprisoned they are fully aware of this and the shock isn't the same. As a result they can be expected to still know where they stand.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.