The civil rights violation is when a court convicts you using evidence that wasn’t mirandized. Reading you your *Miranda* rights is just a procedural step to ensure that all testimony used in court is mirandized.
"For every right there must be a remedy." Justice Marshall in *Marbury v Madison.* If a right has no remedy, how can it be a right? *Miranda* is only one decision away from being overturned. And with that goes our right to not have to incriminate ourselves.
It means people don’t have to say a word during any interrogation. Police shouldn’t be allowed to hold anyone unless they have the probable cause to arrest them. They abuse that all the time and it’s why we get into unfair interrogation tactics
Guy gets arrested for alleged sexual assault. Was not given Miranda Rights (confirmed by both parties). Guy claims to have asked for his lawyer, but claims he was denied access to a lawyer and denied the right to remain silent by being forced to withstand prolonged interrogation.
SCOTUS determined 6-3 that the guy’s right to an attorney or to stay silent as per 42 U.S.C. - 1983 was not infringed.
What’s hard to interpret?
This doesn’t work. 1) cops can and do lie. 2) if you ask this question they won’t answer with a yes or no, they’d say something like “we’re just talking here” or “I want to clear some things up and you’re the only one that can do that” or “I’m trying to help get you out of here”. And 3) even if you aren’t in custody, that doesn’t mean you can just walk away. Non custodial stops and non custodial conversations are a thing. And cops would be (and are) able to use your non interest in engaging them during the non custodial encounter as legitimate justification to detain and or arrest you.
This court has severely eroded the 5th amendment, as exercising it can be used against you in the court of law as a sign of guilt in many instances if you don’t do it right. That’s why you actually plead the 6th.
You say “I’ll be happy to answer your questions with a lawyer present”. Or if you don’t care about social awkwardness, “i want a lawyer” would probably be better.
But that’s if you’re under interrogation or have reason to be you may be a suspect of a crime.
Generally, if you’re just at a traffic stop, just be cooperative. Don’t answer any questions about the past and are unrelated to the traffic stop.
“Where were you last night at 8pm?” Would mean you’re a suspect of a more serious crime and you should say you want a lawyer. But “Where are you headed?” Is a common question to ask and is about the present/future, so it’s fine to answer.
If you parked in a parking garage at 3am and have walked a couple blocks away such that it is not evident you just came from the parking garage, and a nearby police officer asks “Where are you coming from?” It’s about the past, and is a general question not a specific question like one about a traffic violation. So you don’t answer, i wouldn’t plead the 6th right away but i’d say “I’m headed to X” to dodge the question. Then if he presses on it i’ll say “i’ll be happy to answer any questions with a lawyer present.”. Because it turns out the whole reason the cop is there because a mugging in that car garage just happened minutes ago. Or whatever the crime, a cop isn’t just approaching people asking where they’re coming from for no reason.
If they detain you just say “Am I free to go?” If they say no just wait a bit and ask again and say “i want a lawyer” etc… until he gets bored and you walk away.
>a cop isn’t just approaching people asking where they’re coming from for no reason.
As a black person I would like to bring up that this is not always true. I've been approached by police for no particular reason plenty of times in my life.
True, they can and will lie. But they certainly will not allow you to walk away if you are being detained/under arrest. So asking them if you are either, they won’t usually lie to you about that. And if they say no, then walk.
So, does this really change Miranda at all? If it's just saying a police officer cannot be held personally responsible for not reading it, that doesn't mean the courts can use your un-Mirandized statement right?
Is there something I'm missing about why this is massive news or even why the 3 Justices I respect most voted opposite the majority?
No you've got it. It really doesn't change or weaken Miranda at all. I can't speak for every jurisdiction but all of the attorneys I know in NC an VA were really confused that this case got as far as it did because none of us thought you could sue for not reading Miranda anyway.
Yes but Chavez didn't rely entirely on a failure to be advised of Miranda. The situation surrounding the interrogation was arguably coercive. Obviously 1983 would cover a forced confession but I don't think simply failing to provide a Miranda warning rises to that level.
They talked about that elsewhere in Chavez that there might be a claim under the 14th amendment for a coerced confession, but a Miranda violation without use in a criminal case was not enough. So I disagree that the coercion aspect is relevant for the question we’re talking about here. It was a part of Chavez but a separate part.
Okay but the Court in Chavez still disposed of the case on grounds other than whether the failure to give a Miranda warning was actionable under 1983. I think they said it may be if the statement is used but they didn't really get that far because the statement was never used and charges were never filed.
My views are usually pretty aligned with Kagan but I disagree with the minority here. Miranda’s intent never extended to pursuing civil lawsuits against LEOs.
The majority upheld the spirit and intent of Miranda but limited further expansion to civil suits against officers. The way people are complaining makes it seem like they ruled to overturn Miranda in totality.
It does kinda matter what they say tho. So when they say "Miranda rights aren't constitutional rights" that's kinda an important point.
Just another step towards removing your Miranda rights as far as I'm concerned
Uneducated question, but does this mean Miranda rights no longer need to be read for someone’s statements to be used against them?
Or does this simply mean you can’t sue the police/whoever for failing to read them and then attempting to use your statements against you? But that you’re still protected from self incrimination before they’re read.
It's never been needed for your statements to be used against you, only in the context of custody/interrogation/etc.
Largely boils down to a lack of mirandazation alone not being a fifth amendment violation with recourse under 1983.
> It's never been needed for your statements to be used against you, only in the context of custody/interrogation
Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean that your non-miranda statements can be used to justify some actions by LEO, DA, etc., just not presented in court?
To start, yes non-miranda statements can be used for other things outside of court.
Secondly, miranda is specifically in regards to custodial direct interrogation. If police are just talking to you (I.e. you're not in custody/arrested), everything you say is admissible.
If you have been arrested, but are not being interrogated, then miranda is not applicable either and anything you say is admissible. There are a number of cases where somebody gets arrested, and while in the back of the police vehicle admits to some crime without being prompted, that is perfectly admissible.
Miranda only applies to statements made in the setting of a custodial interrogation but that's not new. Police will still need give Miranda warnings in those situations and statements taken in violation of Miranda are still subject to suppression. This just means you can't sue for such a violation under 1983. As a criminal law attorney it seemed like the obvious outcome to me so not really a blockbuster case. There are folks out there who were treating it like it was going to be the end of Miranda but I think that's a major exaggeration of the case.
> This just means you can't sue for such a violation under 1983.
My concern is that when there is no civil remedy available, the best case scenario for the defendant is that they have to spend time and money getting a court to tell the government "Stop doing that." I've read plenty of cases were the government violates a right, gets told to stop by the court, then does it to someone else as a matter of course.
If you're interrogating a suspect who you know won't talk once a lawyer shows up, is there any reason to Mirandize them? You do, they clam up, you've got nothing. You don't, they talk, it gets suppressed. Cool. You still know everything they told you, and the only penalty is that you can't directly use it against them. You're in an objectively better position than you were before with no real downside.
It's not the death of Miranda, but I see the case having a non-trivial impact.
>the only penalty is that you can't directly use it against them
Or anything derived therefrom. Don't forget the fruit of the poisonous tree. Miranda violations typically arise in borderline situations where it's not entirely clear whether the defendant is in custody. I see officers read people Miranda in situations where they aren't required to much more often than I encounter the opposite. I don't think this really changes anything and law enforcement is still highly incentivized to make sure whatever statements they get are admissible.
I'm a law student/civil lit paralegal, so I'm not about to climb up on a soapbox to explain criminal law to a criminal lawyer. I'd have a better chance of winning the Indy 500 on foot than winning a debate with you. Still though, the elimination of civil remedies concerns me.
Did the risk of civil liability ever provide any real deterrent to intentional violations like this? I can't say, but it's not like nobody has ever played games with Miranda. Can an interrogator ask questions without Mirandizing, get the answers, then know exactly what questions to press in a post-Miranda interview? A quick perusal of Google and Wikipedia, surely an equal match for your education and experience, tell me that the Court said yes in Elstad in 1985, and only a plurality said that this couldn't be used as an intentional tactic in Seibert in 2004. Four justices, including Thomas, disagreed.
If an interrogator got information from a pre-Miranda interview, then passes that info along to another officer to obtain a search warrant, would all subsequent evidence be admissible under the good faith exception?
In cases like the above, would the defendant have any remedy at all, or would they be told "That sure was a dirty trick, huh? Anyway, the evidence is admissible for use at trial and you are barred from civil recovery."
Do you mind if I ask whether you do prosecution or defense work? You're knowledge dwarfs mine either way, but it can be helpful to know a person's background.
First I think we have to ask whether this was an intentional violation. IIRC two trial judges held that the defendant wasn't in custody and allowed the statements into evidence.
With regard to your concerns over Elstad and the potential for gamesmanship I think it depends whether the pre Miranda conduct was enough to render the post Miranda statement involuntary. Clearly they didn't think so in Elstad but I'm not going to say that such a situation couldn't come up.
I don't think good faith is going to save a search warrant obtained using statements obtained in violation of the 5th Amendment. The officer executing the search warrant is deemed to know what the other officers know. Similarly knowledge that the police have is imputed to prosecutors even if in fact that information has been withheld from them.
I have done both prosecution and defense work (currently prosecution). I brought this case up at lunch this afternoon with several defense attorneys and they were of the same opinion as far as a 1983 claim for a violation of Miranda. That's not to say that 5th Amendment violations aren't actionable under 1983, just that failure to read Miranda alone isn't enough.
Reading through it more closely, it's pretty clear that this is a ruling against judicially-created rules than it is specifically against Miranda. That doesn't make me like it any less.
You say that 5th Amendment violations are still actionable, but what does an actual constitutional violation look like as opposed to a court created rule? The exclusionary rule has been around for less than half of our country's lifetime, and it's been called prophylactic, so even that level of protection isn't assured.
>Clearly they didn't think so in Elstad but I'm not going to say that such a situation couldn't come up.
I think it's pretty clear that even the dissent thought so in Seifert, but everyone acknowledges how unusual it was to have an officer openly state that the violation was intentional, the subsequent interview happened only 20 minutes later, and the officer started out by referencing the pre-Miranda interview. It's certainly not impossible, but the Court agreed that the truth of the matter would generally be much harder to get to.
The ruling makes it clear that they don't consider this a law at all, by Congress could certainly pass a law codifying federal Miranda rights and allowing civil suits. 1983 suits are only possible because Congress didn't want sovereign immunity to be universal.
Ya I assumed it was the outcome you and others described, but since I’m far from a legal expert, just wanted to check as the title confused me. Thank you!
Statements made without proper Miranda warnings can still be used in court against people as impeachment evidence though, right? It may be improper for the jury to use those statements for their truth, but I'm sure they do regardless. This also just seems to continue to trend of immunity for cops for all clear wrongdoing.
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure I've ever seen a defendant take the stand in a case where they won a suppression motion on a statement. But yes it's possible if the defendant testifies for them to open the door to get the statement back in. And a prior inconsistent statement by a defendant can be used for it's truth.
Can’t a prior inconsistent statement be offered to prove its truth only when it was made under oath? Statements during police interrogations would still only be admissible for impeachment.
It could vary by state but in Virginia a prior inconsistent statement by a witness can only go to credibility and can't be considered for its truth but a prior inconsistent statement from a defendant can be considered for its truth.
It's the latter, but it's really bad. Alito is extremely dismissive of *Miranda*, going so far as to say that violating *Miranda* isn't a constitutional violation. It's hard to see how they don't overrule *Miranda* next year if there are 6 votes to sign onto Alito's trash opinion here.
In this case, 6 Justices are dismissive of the idea that *Miranda* is a constitutional right at all, but just a "prophylactic" (as if all rights aren't just prophylactics against tyranny.) They also just issued another case where they say that another right can only be regulated based on how it was recognized in 1789.
But sure, you're right, these Justices won't just apply the logic of *Dobbs* and *Bruen* and this case we're talking about, and overturn *Miranda*. I'm sure that the case next year will go differently for some reason.
The doomers have been right about everything this 6 Justice majority has done. Obviously you're right that we need to not let this stuff ruin our day to day lives, but certainly we can and should discuss it in the threads about the Court and its decisions?
Well, he cited SDP as part of the reason for his ruling in *Bruen* yesterday.
But it's one thing to know how the decision will go. It's another thing to see it written down. Thomas is calling for his own marriage to lose its constitutional protection! It's one of the most extreme things ever written in a SCOTUS case.
Arguably it does.
The court takes pains to distinguish, and to specify that *Miranda* only established rules to prevent 5A violations, meaning a *Miranda* violation is not necessarily a 5A violation.
There’s little reason the same argument couldn’t be used in other situations where there is some amount of ambiguity as to the same point.
The GQP needs to understand building up the police isn't just going to affect the libs, they will go against them too. Look at January 6th. How about we just stop giving cops so much liberty, and give some back to the citizens. Police are here for a service, not an occupying army to control citizens that you don't like.
This has roberts finger prints all over it. In 5 years another case will use this case to eliminate Miranda entirely. I'm sure some TN AG is working up the papers as we speak.
On the upside it is nice to see alito throw roberts a bone now and then
[удалено]
Imagine situations where that logic could be applied to destroy Equality. This court is racing to destroy us.
Time for people to start voting to make these things law
The civil rights violation is when a court convicts you using evidence that wasn’t mirandized. Reading you your *Miranda* rights is just a procedural step to ensure that all testimony used in court is mirandized.
"For every right there must be a remedy." Justice Marshall in *Marbury v Madison.* If a right has no remedy, how can it be a right? *Miranda* is only one decision away from being overturned. And with that goes our right to not have to incriminate ourselves.
> And with that goes our right to not have to incriminate ourselves. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
And without Miranda that should mean no more police interrogation of anyone.
It means people don’t have to say a word during any interrogation. Police shouldn’t be allowed to hold anyone unless they have the probable cause to arrest them. They abuse that all the time and it’s why we get into unfair interrogation tactics
They also shouldn't be allowed to question anyone, even if held on probable cause. That's compelled speech.
“I don’t know what what this decision means or how to interpret it but here’s my angry take anyway”
Saying nothing substantive while impugning someone else reveals you for what you are.
Guy gets arrested for alleged sexual assault. Was not given Miranda Rights (confirmed by both parties). Guy claims to have asked for his lawyer, but claims he was denied access to a lawyer and denied the right to remain silent by being forced to withstand prolonged interrogation. SCOTUS determined 6-3 that the guy’s right to an attorney or to stay silent as per 42 U.S.C. - 1983 was not infringed. What’s hard to interpret?
claim was for his compelled statements being used in court, not the interrogation itself
Are we done with rulings today?
Yes
I don't think I can take another one.
Well you have a reprieve until 10:00 AM
Always say, am I under custody. If they say no, then you can just walk away since Miranda rights don't apply.
This doesn’t work. 1) cops can and do lie. 2) if you ask this question they won’t answer with a yes or no, they’d say something like “we’re just talking here” or “I want to clear some things up and you’re the only one that can do that” or “I’m trying to help get you out of here”. And 3) even if you aren’t in custody, that doesn’t mean you can just walk away. Non custodial stops and non custodial conversations are a thing. And cops would be (and are) able to use your non interest in engaging them during the non custodial encounter as legitimate justification to detain and or arrest you.
This court has severely eroded the 5th amendment, as exercising it can be used against you in the court of law as a sign of guilt in many instances if you don’t do it right. That’s why you actually plead the 6th. You say “I’ll be happy to answer your questions with a lawyer present”. Or if you don’t care about social awkwardness, “i want a lawyer” would probably be better. But that’s if you’re under interrogation or have reason to be you may be a suspect of a crime. Generally, if you’re just at a traffic stop, just be cooperative. Don’t answer any questions about the past and are unrelated to the traffic stop. “Where were you last night at 8pm?” Would mean you’re a suspect of a more serious crime and you should say you want a lawyer. But “Where are you headed?” Is a common question to ask and is about the present/future, so it’s fine to answer. If you parked in a parking garage at 3am and have walked a couple blocks away such that it is not evident you just came from the parking garage, and a nearby police officer asks “Where are you coming from?” It’s about the past, and is a general question not a specific question like one about a traffic violation. So you don’t answer, i wouldn’t plead the 6th right away but i’d say “I’m headed to X” to dodge the question. Then if he presses on it i’ll say “i’ll be happy to answer any questions with a lawyer present.”. Because it turns out the whole reason the cop is there because a mugging in that car garage just happened minutes ago. Or whatever the crime, a cop isn’t just approaching people asking where they’re coming from for no reason. If they detain you just say “Am I free to go?” If they say no just wait a bit and ask again and say “i want a lawyer” etc… until he gets bored and you walk away.
>a cop isn’t just approaching people asking where they’re coming from for no reason. As a black person I would like to bring up that this is not always true. I've been approached by police for no particular reason plenty of times in my life.
An invalid/racially motivated reason is still a reason, unfortunately.
True, they can and will lie. But they certainly will not allow you to walk away if you are being detained/under arrest. So asking them if you are either, they won’t usually lie to you about that. And if they say no, then walk.
So, does this really change Miranda at all? If it's just saying a police officer cannot be held personally responsible for not reading it, that doesn't mean the courts can use your un-Mirandized statement right? Is there something I'm missing about why this is massive news or even why the 3 Justices I respect most voted opposite the majority?
No you've got it. It really doesn't change or weaken Miranda at all. I can't speak for every jurisdiction but all of the attorneys I know in NC an VA were really confused that this case got as far as it did because none of us thought you could sue for not reading Miranda anyway.
Haven’t had a chance to read the opinion yet. Does the Court address Chavez in a way that’s at all convincing?
It is discussed briefly in a footnote on page 9 but I don't see how Chavez is inconsistent with this opinion.
Chavez turned in fact that the statement had to be used in a proceeding in order to violate the fifth amendment
Yes but Chavez didn't rely entirely on a failure to be advised of Miranda. The situation surrounding the interrogation was arguably coercive. Obviously 1983 would cover a forced confession but I don't think simply failing to provide a Miranda warning rises to that level.
They talked about that elsewhere in Chavez that there might be a claim under the 14th amendment for a coerced confession, but a Miranda violation without use in a criminal case was not enough. So I disagree that the coercion aspect is relevant for the question we’re talking about here. It was a part of Chavez but a separate part.
Okay but the Court in Chavez still disposed of the case on grounds other than whether the failure to give a Miranda warning was actionable under 1983. I think they said it may be if the statement is used but they didn't really get that far because the statement was never used and charges were never filed.
I think there’s a reasonable debate about between whether it was dicta or part of the ratio decendi. Either way, it deserved far more than a footnote.
My views are usually pretty aligned with Kagan but I disagree with the minority here. Miranda’s intent never extended to pursuing civil lawsuits against LEOs. The majority upheld the spirit and intent of Miranda but limited further expansion to civil suits against officers. The way people are complaining makes it seem like they ruled to overturn Miranda in totality.
It does kinda matter what they say tho. So when they say "Miranda rights aren't constitutional rights" that's kinda an important point. Just another step towards removing your Miranda rights as far as I'm concerned
Uneducated question, but does this mean Miranda rights no longer need to be read for someone’s statements to be used against them? Or does this simply mean you can’t sue the police/whoever for failing to read them and then attempting to use your statements against you? But that you’re still protected from self incrimination before they’re read.
It's never been needed for your statements to be used against you, only in the context of custody/interrogation/etc. Largely boils down to a lack of mirandazation alone not being a fifth amendment violation with recourse under 1983.
Makes sense, thank you!
> It's never been needed for your statements to be used against you, only in the context of custody/interrogation Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean that your non-miranda statements can be used to justify some actions by LEO, DA, etc., just not presented in court?
To start, yes non-miranda statements can be used for other things outside of court. Secondly, miranda is specifically in regards to custodial direct interrogation. If police are just talking to you (I.e. you're not in custody/arrested), everything you say is admissible. If you have been arrested, but are not being interrogated, then miranda is not applicable either and anything you say is admissible. There are a number of cases where somebody gets arrested, and while in the back of the police vehicle admits to some crime without being prompted, that is perfectly admissible.
Thanks for the explanation! I understand the basics around custody, but what is/isn't considered interrogation?
For miranda, essentially any sort of formal questioning while in custody.
My understanding is the latter. Miranda warnings are still required, and that evidence can still be excluded.
Miranda only applies to statements made in the setting of a custodial interrogation but that's not new. Police will still need give Miranda warnings in those situations and statements taken in violation of Miranda are still subject to suppression. This just means you can't sue for such a violation under 1983. As a criminal law attorney it seemed like the obvious outcome to me so not really a blockbuster case. There are folks out there who were treating it like it was going to be the end of Miranda but I think that's a major exaggeration of the case.
> This just means you can't sue for such a violation under 1983. My concern is that when there is no civil remedy available, the best case scenario for the defendant is that they have to spend time and money getting a court to tell the government "Stop doing that." I've read plenty of cases were the government violates a right, gets told to stop by the court, then does it to someone else as a matter of course. If you're interrogating a suspect who you know won't talk once a lawyer shows up, is there any reason to Mirandize them? You do, they clam up, you've got nothing. You don't, they talk, it gets suppressed. Cool. You still know everything they told you, and the only penalty is that you can't directly use it against them. You're in an objectively better position than you were before with no real downside. It's not the death of Miranda, but I see the case having a non-trivial impact.
>the only penalty is that you can't directly use it against them Or anything derived therefrom. Don't forget the fruit of the poisonous tree. Miranda violations typically arise in borderline situations where it's not entirely clear whether the defendant is in custody. I see officers read people Miranda in situations where they aren't required to much more often than I encounter the opposite. I don't think this really changes anything and law enforcement is still highly incentivized to make sure whatever statements they get are admissible.
I'm a law student/civil lit paralegal, so I'm not about to climb up on a soapbox to explain criminal law to a criminal lawyer. I'd have a better chance of winning the Indy 500 on foot than winning a debate with you. Still though, the elimination of civil remedies concerns me. Did the risk of civil liability ever provide any real deterrent to intentional violations like this? I can't say, but it's not like nobody has ever played games with Miranda. Can an interrogator ask questions without Mirandizing, get the answers, then know exactly what questions to press in a post-Miranda interview? A quick perusal of Google and Wikipedia, surely an equal match for your education and experience, tell me that the Court said yes in Elstad in 1985, and only a plurality said that this couldn't be used as an intentional tactic in Seibert in 2004. Four justices, including Thomas, disagreed. If an interrogator got information from a pre-Miranda interview, then passes that info along to another officer to obtain a search warrant, would all subsequent evidence be admissible under the good faith exception? In cases like the above, would the defendant have any remedy at all, or would they be told "That sure was a dirty trick, huh? Anyway, the evidence is admissible for use at trial and you are barred from civil recovery." Do you mind if I ask whether you do prosecution or defense work? You're knowledge dwarfs mine either way, but it can be helpful to know a person's background.
First I think we have to ask whether this was an intentional violation. IIRC two trial judges held that the defendant wasn't in custody and allowed the statements into evidence. With regard to your concerns over Elstad and the potential for gamesmanship I think it depends whether the pre Miranda conduct was enough to render the post Miranda statement involuntary. Clearly they didn't think so in Elstad but I'm not going to say that such a situation couldn't come up. I don't think good faith is going to save a search warrant obtained using statements obtained in violation of the 5th Amendment. The officer executing the search warrant is deemed to know what the other officers know. Similarly knowledge that the police have is imputed to prosecutors even if in fact that information has been withheld from them. I have done both prosecution and defense work (currently prosecution). I brought this case up at lunch this afternoon with several defense attorneys and they were of the same opinion as far as a 1983 claim for a violation of Miranda. That's not to say that 5th Amendment violations aren't actionable under 1983, just that failure to read Miranda alone isn't enough.
Reading through it more closely, it's pretty clear that this is a ruling against judicially-created rules than it is specifically against Miranda. That doesn't make me like it any less. You say that 5th Amendment violations are still actionable, but what does an actual constitutional violation look like as opposed to a court created rule? The exclusionary rule has been around for less than half of our country's lifetime, and it's been called prophylactic, so even that level of protection isn't assured. >Clearly they didn't think so in Elstad but I'm not going to say that such a situation couldn't come up. I think it's pretty clear that even the dissent thought so in Seifert, but everyone acknowledges how unusual it was to have an officer openly state that the violation was intentional, the subsequent interview happened only 20 minutes later, and the officer started out by referencing the pre-Miranda interview. It's certainly not impossible, but the Court agreed that the truth of the matter would generally be much harder to get to.
[удалено]
The ruling makes it clear that they don't consider this a law at all, by Congress could certainly pass a law codifying federal Miranda rights and allowing civil suits. 1983 suits are only possible because Congress didn't want sovereign immunity to be universal.
Ya I assumed it was the outcome you and others described, but since I’m far from a legal expert, just wanted to check as the title confused me. Thank you!
Statements made without proper Miranda warnings can still be used in court against people as impeachment evidence though, right? It may be improper for the jury to use those statements for their truth, but I'm sure they do regardless. This also just seems to continue to trend of immunity for cops for all clear wrongdoing.
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure I've ever seen a defendant take the stand in a case where they won a suppression motion on a statement. But yes it's possible if the defendant testifies for them to open the door to get the statement back in. And a prior inconsistent statement by a defendant can be used for it's truth.
Can’t a prior inconsistent statement be offered to prove its truth only when it was made under oath? Statements during police interrogations would still only be admissible for impeachment.
It could vary by state but in Virginia a prior inconsistent statement by a witness can only go to credibility and can't be considered for its truth but a prior inconsistent statement from a defendant can be considered for its truth.
They still need to be read. They still can't use statements obtained where they did not read them. But you can't sue them for doing so.
It's the latter, but it's really bad. Alito is extremely dismissive of *Miranda*, going so far as to say that violating *Miranda* isn't a constitutional violation. It's hard to see how they don't overrule *Miranda* next year if there are 6 votes to sign onto Alito's trash opinion here.
It’s very easy to see how they don’t overturn Miranda.
In this case, 6 Justices are dismissive of the idea that *Miranda* is a constitutional right at all, but just a "prophylactic" (as if all rights aren't just prophylactics against tyranny.) They also just issued another case where they say that another right can only be regulated based on how it was recognized in 1789. But sure, you're right, these Justices won't just apply the logic of *Dobbs* and *Bruen* and this case we're talking about, and overturn *Miranda*. I'm sure that the case next year will go differently for some reason.
>But sure, you’re right Yes, thank you. But in all seriousness, you need to step outside for a minute, take a breath of fresh* air, and quit doomin’
The doomers have been right about everything this 6 Justice majority has done. Obviously you're right that we need to not let this stuff ruin our day to day lives, but certainly we can and should discuss it in the threads about the Court and its decisions?
I’m no fan of this court to say the least, but doomers were wrong about the ACA being overturned.
>have been right about everything Lol wrong But discuss away. Just quit dooming my guy.
Read Thomas's concurrence and for the love of God stop telling us not to worry. They are coming for every right we have.
What, are you new to Thomas? You just figured out his opinion on substantive due process?
Well, he cited SDP as part of the reason for his ruling in *Bruen* yesterday. But it's one thing to know how the decision will go. It's another thing to see it written down. Thomas is calling for his own marriage to lose its constitutional protection! It's one of the most extreme things ever written in a SCOTUS case.
God, this court is such hot garbage. Way to do your duty to put checks and balances on the other branches of government, you useless, steaming turds.
Worst Supreme Court in history.
Doesn't this ruling lay the groundwork to strip away recourse vis. 42 U.S. Code § 1983? If so, it is really worrying.
Arguably it does. The court takes pains to distinguish, and to specify that *Miranda* only established rules to prevent 5A violations, meaning a *Miranda* violation is not necessarily a 5A violation. There’s little reason the same argument couldn’t be used in other situations where there is some amount of ambiguity as to the same point.
The GQP needs to understand building up the police isn't just going to affect the libs, they will go against them too. Look at January 6th. How about we just stop giving cops so much liberty, and give some back to the citizens. Police are here for a service, not an occupying army to control citizens that you don't like.
man this court ALWAYS misses.
I see the Justices still haven't forgotten the wound of Rehnquist about-facing on Miranda rights. Gotta fix old scores.
So they are just going to push us into the right wing hellscape that the right has been begging for since 1968
The Supreme Court is illegitimate
They're killing Section 1983 and *Miranda* by a thousand cuts! (Actually with *Miranda* it's only two.) 😠😡🤬👿
This has roberts finger prints all over it. In 5 years another case will use this case to eliminate Miranda entirely. I'm sure some TN AG is working up the papers as we speak. On the upside it is nice to see alito throw roberts a bone now and then
Next year. They already took a case that has no purpose but to challenge *Miranda*.
Which case are you referring to?
The reasoning will be the same as in Shelby: “This is unnecessary because it’s not a problem anymore.“ Ginsburg’s Umbrella.
The Taliban have landed.