• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Supreme Court Expected to Curtail the Scope of the Miranda Rights

Sam Bridges

Sam Bridges

Member
May 3, 2022
326
Searched for this topic and didn't see it posted yet. Read me my rights if old


While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for abortion rights, a lesser-known case looks likely to erode another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights.

This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person's federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. These warnings, known as Miranda warnings after the 1966 Supreme Court case that first prescribed them, have become critical protections against coercive police interrogations and are routinely recited by officers whenever they make arrests or question suspects in custody.

The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

More in the link:

thehill.com

Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing

While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for aborti…
thehill.com thehill.com

Hey cool it's not like police ever act dishonestly or anything, who needs constitutionally protected rights anyway? =\

At this point I guess we shouldn't expect any right to be safe from this supreme court.
 
Surakian

Surakian

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
10,818
Instead of doing new stuff to improve our nation, they are going back and dismantling everything to make way for our fascist regime in a little bit.
 
Plinko

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,562
A little clarification:

Miranda rights would not be removed. This would just not require police to read the warning of rights during an arrest. Still a major issue, but not the same by any means.
 
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,734
To clarify, they're talking about the right to be warned about the right to remain silent etc., not those other rights themselves? You'll still have the right to remain silent etc?
 
Friskykillface

Friskykillface

Member
Nov 27, 2017
30,008
California
We really shouldn't be surprised at this
Fucking go on tv and point out why they are doing this Biden, it's over
Drag their names on tv so people can get mad
This is ridiculous
 
I_love_potatoes

I_love_potatoes

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Jul 6, 2020
1,640
America is really trying to speedrun itself to become a third world country.
 
Sulik2

Sulik2

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,168
Plinko said:
A little clarification:

Miranda rights would not be removed. This would just not require police to read the rights during an arrest. Still a major issue, but not the same by any means.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Isn't this just the first step to giving states the right to remove Miranda rights completely?
 
dubc

dubc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,423
Seattle
Plinko said:
A little clarification:

Miranda rights would not be removed. This would just not require police to read the warning of rights during an arrest. Still a major issue, but not the same by any means.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

gofreak said:
To clarify, they're talking about the right to be warned about the right to remain silent etc., not those other rights themselves? You'll still have the right to remain silent etc?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel like the OP and title need updates, whew, still terrible but not as bad as I originally thought.
 
Pall Mall

Pall Mall

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,424
This Supreme Court will be the reason the USA breaks up. A nigh unimpeachable power handing down decisions that are irreconcilable with good governance and the will of the majority.
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
This seems hyperbolic. The case is about whether you can sue an officer for a civil rights violation (overcoming immunity) for failing to provide miranda warning
 
pizzaparty

pizzaparty

Member
Oct 28, 2017
775
This case is about whether or not someone can pursue a civil action for a Miranda violation. The case does not overrule Miranda or the exclusion of statements as a result of a Miranda violation at trial.
 
Juryvicious

Juryvicious

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,834
What in the holy fucking shit is going on with US Supreme Court?

How can anyone, and I mean anyone possibly think this ends well?
 
RiOrius

RiOrius

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,073
So, combine this with the fact that cops are allowed to lie to you, plus the fact that everyone knows the beginning of the Miranda rights from TV, how long until cops start arresting people with lies about the Miranda rights?

"You have the right to remain silent, but your silence will be taken as evidence of guilt and be held against you in court of law. You have a right to an attorney, but if you're innocent you don't need one. If you cannot afford an attorney, you can waive your right to representation."
 
entremet

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
59,984
Pall Mall said:
This Supreme Court will be the reason the USA breaks up. A nigh unimpeachable power handing down decisions that are irreconcilable with good governance and the will of the majority.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What's funny (and sad) the Judiciary wasn't supposed to be this powerful. But Judicial fiat became a thing and here we are.
The story American students are generally taught about judicial power is that in 1803, eight years after Jay's departure, Chief Justice John Marshall overturned a federal law in Marbury v. Madison. This established the concept of "judicial review," which gave the Court the ability to interpret the Constitution and the power it's enjoyed ever since. But this version of the Court's history is so oversimplified as to be essentially false. As Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar points out in America's Constitution: A Biography, after the Marbury decision, the Marshall Court overturned plenty of state laws but never again overturned a federal law. The early Supreme Court wasn't a check on Congress on the White House. It was a check on the states. (In fact, the second time the Court overturned a federal law wasn't until 1857's Dred Scott v. Sanford, widely considered among the most disastrous decisions in the judiciary's history.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
gen.medium.com

The Supreme Court Wasn’t Always All-Powerful

When it comes to injecting partisan politics into the judiciary, Amy Coney Barrett’s rushed confirmation is a whole new level of meddling
gen.medium.com gen.medium.com
 
OP
OP
Sam Bridges

Sam Bridges

Member
May 3, 2022
326
Plinko said:
A little clarification:

Miranda rights would not be removed. This would just not require police to read the warning of rights during an arrest. Still a major issue, but not the same by any means.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I realized after the fact that I probably could have titled the thread better, but I'd also point out that the average person doesn't really understand at what point interrogations become custodial and they should be aware of what their rights are in that situation, which is why police were universally required to inform people of their rights.

By removing any requirement to inform people in custody of their rights, it becomes really easy for a lot of those people to assume they don't have them/can't exercise them at that point, especially since the courts have already decided that police can deceive suspects during the interrogation process.

So, yeah, it's not actually technically overturning your rights, but it opens the door to all sorts of abuses of power that effectively have the same result, and the whole thing is a stepping stone to removing those rights completely, IMO.
 
Autumn

Autumn

Avenger
Apr 1, 2018
6,302
They will chip away until we have nothing. And Dems will do nothing to stop them.
 
mbpm

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,541
Well nobody listens to the Miranda anyway, it's like the terms and conditions right?

But seriously this seems like a bad precedent
 
Dice

Dice

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,214
Canada
sangreal said:
This seems hyperbolic. The case is about whether you can sue an officer for a civil rights violation (overcoming immunity) for failing to provide miranda warning
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Kinda this? I thought it was just a formality. Being let go of a criminal charge because an officer failed to say it feels like one of those technicalities that you'd see on coupons that voids a deal. I'd assume/hope[?] the part of having an attorney and all that is still given and not up for questioning; and I hope[!] it wouldn't lead to a bunch of officer's neglecting to say it because now it's in their rights or whatever.

I think other recent SC changes have been far more detrimental.

Sam Bridges said:
By removing any requirement to inform people in custody of their rights, it becomes really easy for a lot of those people to assume they don't have them/can't exercise them at that point, especially since the courts have already decided that police can deceive suspects during the interrogation process.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, they really don't. The justice system seems highly in favour of fucking people over regardless because of them for-profit prisons and a million other problems correlated to economic and racial inequality. :/

Miranda is important, but I think there's way bigger mountains in the justice system that need to be looked at.
Bah. I'm being annoying. I do agree very much with you though. It's just another layer of possible protection for citizens against the bullies that cops tend to be.

Kill3r7 said:
It doesn't matter whether the defendant listens to it. It being said/read out loud is important because it affords the defendant an opportunity to realize that being quiet until an attorney is present is more often than not the right answer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah well said.
You can never 100% be certain if those getting arrested know the drill or best course of action for sure.
 
Last edited:
trashbandit

trashbandit

Member
Dec 19, 2019
3,910
I can't say what I think should happen to the conservative justices of the court, by I will continue to desperately hope for it.
 
OP
OP
Sam Bridges

Sam Bridges

Member
May 3, 2022
326
Drowner said:
Cops don't say them anyway
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're not required to say them any time they arrest someone. They're only required to be read you your Miranda rights before official custodial interrogations.

If they fail to read you your rights in those situations, or fail to adhere to them (e.g. they keep questioning you after you ask for a lawyer), then any evidence or information gathered during that interrogation would be inadmissible.

At least in theory, who know what the fuck our current courts will have to say about any of that at this point.
 
Kill3r7

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,401
mbpm said:
Well nobody listens to the Miranda anyway, it's like the terms and conditions right?

But seriously this seems like a bad precedent
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It doesn't matter whether the suspect in custody listens to it. It being said/read out loud is important because it affords the suspect an opportunity to realize that being quiet until an attorney is present is more often than not the right answer.
 
Coyote Starrk

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
52,923
A move deliberately designed to allow police to mistreat immigrants and minorities without facing consequences.
 
Morrigan

Morrigan

Spear of the Metal Church
Member
Oct 24, 2017
34,308
gofreak said:
To clarify, they're talking about the right to be warned about the right to remain silent etc., not those other rights themselves? You'll still have the right to remain silent etc?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Correct.

Sulik2 said:
Isn't this just the first step to giving states the right to remove Miranda rights completely?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the right to remain silent and to not self-incriminate is protected by the 5th amendment, right? So, nah, not really.

That said, this is still fucked.
 
Plinko

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,562
Sam Bridges said:
I realized after the fact that I probably could have titled the thread better, but I'd also point out that the average person doesn't really understand at what point interrogations become custodial and they should be aware of what their rights are in that situation, which is why police were universally required to inform people of their rights.

By removing any requirement to inform people in custody of their rights, it becomes really easy for a lot of those people to assume they don't have them/can't exercise them at that point, especially since the courts have already decided that police can deceive suspects during the interrogation process.

So, yeah, it's not actually technically overturning your rights, but it opens the door to all sorts of abuses of power that effectively have the same result, and the whole thing is a stepping stone to removing those rights completely, IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I completely agree. That said, that's not what this case is about.
 
ezekial45

ezekial45

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,742
The SC are working overtime to give total immunity to the police once the mass riots and social unrest kicks in after the GOP takes over the country. I'm thinking about the other law from last week too.

All this just seems like they're preparing for civil unrest across the country and they law enforcement to have free reign to "handle it" how they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.