Miranda Rights Warning Could Get Rewrite

Miranda Rights Warning Could Get Rewrite

www.cbsnews.com

Supreme Court Case Could Result in Police Explicitly Telling Suspects About Right to Counsel During Any Interrogation.

(AP) The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they have to explicitly warn criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Miranda rights have been endlessly litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the rights to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. But those requirements likely will continue to be parsed by lawyers and judges.

It's about time the Supreme Court looks into giving a definitive process for the most cherished of laws amongst many Americans - Miranda Rights.

Powell, a convicted felon, was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.

Many criminals have gotten off scott free on crimes committed due to an improper procedural administration of these Rights. A defined application can narrow the line between lost administrative process and retained criminal ineptitude.

Florida v. Powell, 08-1175

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 17-4-2010 by DarkspARCS]

"You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

wow - talk about ` dumbing down ` - how much clearer can the origional be ?

i have bolded the sections i think are crystal clear

if a suspect is aware that he can talk to a lawyer BEFORE being interviewed AND use this right at any time there after - how can anyone who actually wants a lawyer present , not know they are entitled

it doesnt say anywhere that they are allowed to use the toilet while in custody -

but i bet everyone manages to excerise the right to be escorted to the bathroom

if a suspect declines his right to legal representation before being questioned - no ammount of additional information on his rihgts is going to help

reply to post by ignorant_ape


The main problem has been the police giving you your rights and the first time you answer any question they ask, they then tell the suspect that Miranda no longer applies and they must answer all questions from then on. They did this to my 15 year old son and he fell for it. It cost me nearly 60,000 to fix the problem. Plus he wasn't involved in the original crime they took him in for.
I'm not one to bad mouth all LEO's but more often than not they use coercion and lies to get results. It has always bothered me that police can lie with impunity but if you lie to protect yourself they add charges and make life more miserable!

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

it says that the right can be exercised at any time

i am not going to go into the issue of police lying to suspects - other than to ask :

if a suspect will abandon the right i have just quoted , in response to alleged police lies - what modified text will protect him against future police lies ?

[edit on 17-4-2010 by ignorant_ape]

The central park jogger case comes to mind about police interrogations and getting confessions out of ppl.

From wiki:

Although the suspects (except Salaam) had confessed on videotape in the presence of a parent or guardian, they retracted their statements within weeks, claiming that they had been intimidated, lied to, and coerced into making false confessions.[9] While the confessions themselves were videotaped, the hours of interrogation that preceded the confessions were not.

No DNA evidence tied the suspects to the crime, so the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the confessions.[1] In fact, analysis indicated that the DNA collected at the crime scene did not match any of the suspects — and that the crime scene DNA had all come from a single, as-yet-unknown person.[9]

This is one of the most important rights and I am glad the Supreme Court is delving into the issue even further. Police and other law enforcement officials are required by law to explicitly state a suspects rights before any interrogation. That immutable right is often sidetracked and carefully withheld when someone is taken into custody. In some instances, law enforcement use threats and intimidation to get people to withdraw their right to remain silent and to consult an attorney before questioning. Not all use what was mentioned above, but some in the law enforcement community do.

If this crucial right is willfully suspended or forgotten about by the investigators it often leads to innocent people being wrongfully prosecuted and which allow the guilty to get away with their crimes. In the high stakes environment of prosecuting heinous and violent crimes, sometimes a person's Constitutional rights are misplaced or withheld for the sake of bring a serious case to closure. Some investigators have added pressures to contend with when solving serious crimes by their superiors to bring someone in to make them accountable, or face ridicule or reprisal of their own. That is one of the underlying problems that law enforcement faces as they investigate serious and controversial crimes. In other words, the inter-office pressures must be alleviated against the investigators as well, so that justice can take its course gradually and legally.

Still, clearly defining this right will only contribute to more rock solid cases and irrefutable prosecution of the guilty. So, this ought to be good news to those who investigate crimes because it will lead to fair and lawful convictions, and those who may find themselves in police custody at one point in their life as an alleged suspect of a crime. I see this as a win win for all involved and that goes for law enforcement and the accused.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by Jakes51]

I don't understand how the charges could have been overturned when he signed the thing. It very clearly states that he can talk to a lawyer at any time. Perhaps he claimed not to be able to read?

I have seen a number of cases where the person is interviewed/interrogated before officially being taken in to policy custody at which time they are given their Miranda warning. It happens all the time as police do a canvas of the scene. The subject taken in to custody is given no warning upfront. I don't know if this resolves that issue, it doesn't appear to.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by ZindoDoone

 

You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

it says that the right can be exercised at any time

i am not going to go into the issue of police lying to suspects - other than to ask :

if a suspect will abandon the right i have just quoted , in response to alleged police lies - what modified text will protect him against future police lies ?

[edit on 17-4-2010 by ignorant_ape]

No it is true that no text can be written to fix that. Only education at a young age will give the chance of fairness. It really comes down to just how good your counsel is and how well he/she is connected!

Zindo