Justice Stevens reads police interrogation dissent aloud from the bench

Justice Stevens reads police interrogation dissent aloud from the bench

rawstory.com

A decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday easing rules on police interrogations led the oldest member on the bench to read his dissent aloud in front of the court, the first time that's happened this term.

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present," David Stout reports for the New York Times.

The Times adds,

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a de

(visit the link for the full news article)

It's not at all surprising. We should all be mad about this. When are the protests going to happen? I am livid because of this. You need to be allowed to have an attorney if the police are present. So now the police are allowed to do anything they want to you if you become arrested. This is sickening. I've now lost all the respect I've had for the supreme court.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh this is milktoast man. Wait till they start tazering and spraying us for not willingly submitting to DNA retreival. Or when they actually do arrest us, they don't have to charge us with any particular crime. "We saw you do it", DO WHAT? "We'll get back to you on that, next year, or seven" Habeas Corpus my @$$.

reply to post by dashen

We haven't had habeas corpus since the Bush administration. Under the patriot act they basically suspended the rights for habeas corpus. Now they're taking away your rights to have an attorney during a police interrogation. This is a bit ridiculous.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Frankidealist35]

Thanks for posting this.

I can't understand why this is not a leading news headline across the nation. This makes me so frustrated. It just gives more power to a force that is becoming more corrupt.

I am speechless.

reply to post by Ace High

Yeah. You would think that all of those progressive liberals that disliked the Bush administration would be all over this kind of thing.

I think personally Barack Obama is so well liked right now so that's why all of this stuff gets under the radar.

People need to seriously wake up here. The new clown is the same as the old clown.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


It is down right scary. He is so popular that he could get almost anything he wants passed into law with the people cheering him on. I don't really have anything against Obama, I just think that when anyone gets this popular it is dangerous. Bush was the most popular guy in the world right after 9/11 and look at laws he was able to pass.

This is why you need to stand up. The initial AP article that ran this story months ago said that Obama's legal team was working on a way to get this done. Well here you go. Only ONE Justice had the courage to rise and read his dissent aloud in front of the court, the first time in this term. They are destroying your right LITTLE BY LITTLE! Just so you don't notice. Take notice NOW. Was Bush not enough?

"The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush," the AP notes.

At The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle observed, "The timing and contrast were striking: As President Barack Obama introduced Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the nation as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Justice Antonin Scalia, sitting on the high court bench, read parts of a 5-4 decision overruling a 23-year-old precedent on the right to counsel."

This is the Change Obama was talking about, this isn't the change I supported when he ran. He said he would restore Habeas Corpus, now he wants prolonged detention, and no right to counsel. And he GOT IT.

A similar story was posted here had a judge rule that using a taser as a means to get information and DNA samples is ok. Pain for info = torture. So now they can interrogate you without a lawyer and torture you. The police state is now here. Change we can believe in!

The Administration speaks, the courts listen. That's DICTATORSHIP!


All the more reason for my signature.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 10-6-2009 by projectvxn]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for the police and prosecutors to question suspects, lifting some restrictions on when defendants can be interrogated without their lawyers present

The article is a little vague, what does it mean in real terms? It says it's lifting some of the restrictions on interrogation. Now the cops might have the right to interrogate whoever they want while the lawyer is out of the room, but the suspect has the right to silence until he get back, correct?

I'm just not clear if this is as big as a deal as it seems like. Suspects can still have an attorney present, just not all of the time during interrogation?

reply to post by Lazyninja


Police are experts at intimidation. One of the advantages of having a lawyer present is to simply remind the suspect after the cops browbeating that, "You don't have to answer that." It helps keep the suspect from incriminating themselves. Also, the police will be a lot more careful with what they say, or how they threaten the suspect with an observer present who knows the laws.

reply to post by Ace High


I understand all that. I'm just not clear on what exactly this means in practice. Does it mean that the cops are going to be able to "shoo" the attorney out for 5 minutes while they break out the tazers. Or does it mean that they're free to interrogate a suspect while his attorney makes the drive to the police station, etc etc.

I'm pretty sure that most interrogation goes down without an attorney anyway, so the impact this is going to have on people who are uneducated about their legal rights is going to be minimal. However it is obvious that this is a step designed to make the cop's job easier.

reply to post by Lazyninja


I agree that the article was not very clear on the extent of freedom it grants the police.

Nevertheless, I would be for more protection for the suspect. The system should be innocent until proven guilty.