Miranda rights revised
- Thread starter FireEMSPolice
- Start date
How does this blow? As I read it, it may actually help police. How many times has a criminal invoked their rights, and way later they make an admission, only to have it thrown out because 2 years ago they invoked thier right to remain silent? Now, officers can go back to you at a later time, advise you of your rights all over again, and obtain a legal confession. Seems to me that is a GOOD thing.
mcpd2025 said:
No problems there. If HE opens his mouth and starts to talk, and I didn't question him, anything he says is admissable.
Yes, but it used to be if he invoked his right to an attorney, you could never speak with him again without an attorney. Now, you can advise him of his rights 2 weeks after he is released from custody, and if he decides to speak with you, after previously invoking his rights, it is a legal confession.
The time element is the least important part of the ruling - it's the fact that it means now that a suspect has to actively claim their right to an attorney or to not answer questions. The problems was in cases where a suspect might not actually waive their rights, but not make a clear indication that they wanted to assert them.
Under the new ruling, the first response, and it will be fought over for years, is that if a person does not actually state that they wish to remain silent and/or request a lawyer, you can still talk to them.
People have been expecting the Supremes to chuck Miranda outright for quite a while now.
Under the new ruling, the first response, and it will be fought over for years, is that if a person does not actually state that they wish to remain silent and/or request a lawyer, you can still talk to them.
People have been expecting the Supremes to chuck Miranda outright for quite a while now.
mcpd2025 said:
Not quite...once he invokes his rights, I cannot question him. I can still make small talk, ask his address for booking record, etc. Now, if he suddenly says something incriminating after being read his rights, that opens the door to being questioned. He can always shut up again.
Phillyrube said:
Would anything said after being advised of, and invoking, said subject's rights be admissable?
Not here in Maryland it wouldn't... but we are a fairly liberal state that leans towards the rights of the dirtbags over the safety of the general public. Thats why this new ruling is good for the police. It used to be that once he invoked his right to an attorney, you could never ever talk to him again with the intention of soliciting a confession without an attorney. Even if the guy changed his mind, he had still invoked his right and you couldn't speak to him without an attorney. Now, you can release him from custody, wait 2 weeks, and advise him again. If he doesn't invoke his rights, you can question him and capture that statement and use if in a Maryland court of law.
Doug said:
Here, yes. They're spontaneous utterances. As long as we did no questioning, and it was a free statement on their part, it's fair game.
When transporting to jail, I normally give Miranda just for my own CYA, not so much I'm going to ask them anything. I rarely ask questions while driving, mainly because it's hard to hear them with the cage, nor do I really need any more info from them, as I've already arrested them. But, you'd be surprised at the spontaneous incriminating statements I sometimes hear. I don't acknowledge them, just make a mental note and let them continue with their verbal vomit. This only happens occassionally, most of the times it's phrases and words you wouldn't hear on primetime TV.
Excited utterances are always allowed, provided the defense cannot prove that the officer made any statements or other action meant to provoke an utterance. Phillyrude stated that once the suspect makes an utterance, that opens the door to questioning.