Suspect ask police for a lawyer dog, Louisiana Supreme Court deny his request - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]When a friend says, “I’ll hit you up later dog,” he is stating that he will call again sometime. He is not calling the person a “later dog.” But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking. The ruling by Louisiana’s high court could have serious implications for a suspect charged with raping a juvenile, because it will allow his subsequent incriminating statements into evidence at his trial, which is pending. And it clarified that requesting a canine attorney need not cause the police to stop questioning someone.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.546aee3b1d35"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.546aee3b1d35[/URL]

I’m confused. Was this an attempt to bypass the suspect’s constitutional rights? This seems like an obvious case of twisting words.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;52885786]I’m confused. Was this an attempt to bypass the suspect’s constitutional rights? This seems like an obvious case of twisting words.[/QUOTE] No he specifically asked for a lawyer dog, but sadly dogs are underrepresented in the law field.

Can't make this shit up

Wow, fuck Louisiana. What a bullshit reason to deny someone their right to counsel.

someone appeal this moronic decision

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;52885786]I’m confused. Was this an attempt to bypass the suspect’s constitutional rights? This seems like an obvious case of twisting words.[/QUOTE] Louisiana. Like Miss and NM and a couple of other states, the entire state economy hinges on prison income, therefore the system is set up in a quite literal and actual rigging method so that when you enter the system, you are virtually guaranteed to go to jail, because there is an absolutely mind boggling number of people who derive their income from you going to jail, and this system has been in place since the early 1900s, and will not be going away until such time as the state's entire infrastructure is gutted and replaced, which is likely safe to say will not be happening in your lifetime.

He's not wrong though, lawyer dogs do exist. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzaBV2_CEAAs7MK.jpg[/IMG]

Wow, if they want to be pedantic they could at least be consistent. He asked for a "Lawyer, dawg" not a "lawyer dog". Fucking christ. [editline]13th November 2017[/editline] Everyone involved in the legal system of Louisiana that was informed of this perversion of justice and stood by and did nothing to help should immediately lose their jobs and licenses.

So now the officers handling your case can deny you your constitutional rights because they willingly and voluntarily misheard / misunderstood what you said. This is like being asked a question while in cuffs, and responding, "I plead the 5th man" and being berated with "[B]WHO IS THE FIFTH MAN?? TELL US WHO THE FIFTH MAN IS![/B]" Or like being asked, "Do you mind if I search the vehicle?" and responding "Yes, I do" and the officer on scene responds "He said yes, tear his shit apart" Only in America..

Air bud On The Court

This sounds like it would be a great kids mov— [QUOTE] charged with raping a juvenile [/QUOTE] Nevermind.

[video=youtube;a-tebesfO3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-tebesfO3M[/video]

I don't care about the dude, but the defendant needs a lawyer. If you purposely misinterpret someones words then you should lose your job as a judge. That's purposefully antagonizing the defendant and abusing your position. It sets a very dangerous precedent because it'll just mean that courts can violate your human rights based on "technicals". The judge knows full well what he's doing because he wouldn't be a judge otherwise. It's kindergarten behavoir. Granted I will say I'm not a lawyer and not really in the know-how of this stuff. Just my personal opinion based on my current knowledge.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52885959]someone appeal this moronic decision[/QUOTE] They did, in the state supreme court, even. It was actually the supreme court judge who went with the "lol lawyer dog" thing.

[QUOTE=Shugo;52889568]They did, in the state supreme court, even. It was actually the supreme court judge who went with the "lol lawyer dog" thing.[/QUOTE] I foresee certiorari in this case's future. Hopefully.

[QUOTE=Mentlegen;52886831]I don't care about the dude, but the defendant needs a lawyer. If you purposely misinterpret someones words then you should lose your job as a judge. That's purposefully antagonizing the defendant and abusing your position. It sets a very dangerous precedent because it'll just mean that courts can violate your human rights based on "technicals". The judge knows full well what he's doing because he wouldn't be a judge otherwise. It's kindergarten behavoir. Granted I will say I'm not a lawyer and not really in the know-how of this stuff. Just my personal opinion based on my current knowledge.[/QUOTE] From [url=https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf]the judge's statement[/url] it seems clear that this thing about a 'lawyer dog' is sensationalism: [quote]The defendant voluntarily agreed to be interviewed twice regarding his alleged sexual misconduct with minors. At both interviews detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and the defendant stated he understood and waived those rights. Nonetheless, the defendant argues he invoked his right to counsel. And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer—prefacing that statement with “if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.” [/quote] [quote]see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). [/quote] The court isn't saying he asked for a 'lawyer dog', it's saying that he voluntarily came in for questioning and said 'I feel like if you think I did it you should give me a lawyer', which the court held is ambiguous as to whether he's demanding to see a lawyer immediately. Personally I think the legal system ought to lean so far in the defendant's direction that even an ambiguous, potential request for a lawyer should be treated as such, so I disagree with the outcome, but to me it seems like a different issue from misinterpretation of the words themselves. The issue isn't whether he was asking for a lawyer or a lawyer dog, it's whether he was actually asking for a lawyer or talking hypothetically/conditionally.