New York Firearms Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
Too bad we have the NDAA now so Miranda is pretty much useless unless you are arrested by the locals and the feds don't take over the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Berghuis v. Thompkins

Google Scholar
Holy crap, that's a **** ton of reading! I read a bunch and didn't put a dent in it. Can you sum it up? lol

The Maricopa County case is pretty interesting, that the judge ruled in favor of the defendant with the Miranda stuff. Last I knew right from the Supreme Court, was that Miranda wasn't required unless A- Suspect is in custody and B- an interrogation is taking place. Both criteria have had to been met.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
Miranda wasn't required unless A- Suspect is in custody and B- an interrogation is taking place. Both criteria have had to been met.
Correct

A quick summation ..:::???

In order to invoke your constitutional rights, you are required to do something: invoke your rights.
What does that mean?
You must make a clear and unequivocal statement to the police that you are exercising your rights under the Constitution.

Note that silence is no longer an invocation of rights, following the Supreme Court's decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins.
There are so many things silence could mean, aside from, well, silence, and so just shutting up isn't good enough anymore.
Besides, as the Berghuis case has shown, even a fellow inclined to just shut up may eventually crack under pressure and cease his just shutting up.
It happens. A lot.

Now for another nuanced detail that seems to confuse so many people.
The police do not have to read you Miranda rights for you to be lawfully arrested, ........
What may not be as clear is that the police do not have to read you Miranda rights until you are subject to a custodial interrogation.
In other words, it doesn't kick in until you are in custody.

What does that mean?
Custody means that a reasonable person would understand that he is not free to leave.
To the Supreme Court, a reasonable person is one who has no fear of saying to police officers, "Gentlemen, as much as I enjoy your company and pleasant conversation, I no longer feel like engaging with you, so I will now be on my way," without concern that they will thereupon be beaten, tased, tackled, kicked in the head a few times until their orbital socket is fractured beyond repair, or shot.

At the time police take you into custody, you have at least two immediate constitutional rights at risk. You have the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment, and the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment. These are separate rights, even though they are put at risk at the same time.

Nonetheless, you have these rights even if the police have failed to tell you so, whether because they will claim you weren't yet in custody or they simply don't want to.
By realizing this up front, you will be empowered to assert your rights regardless of whether the police give you Miranda warnings.
They are yours to use or lose.

The invocation of these two crucial rights must be made clearly and unequivocally.
That means that there can be no doubt, from the words spoken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Haha thanks!! You didn't have to do that....but good information. All of it is what I've known to be the latest information, and very important for everyone to know! Some watch way too much TV, and I can't even count how many times I've had people demand that I mirandize them after having arrested them, telling me that I'm required to. On occasion, I do oblige to get them to shut up. Sometimes makes life a lot easier.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top