• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

When scheming defense attorney's get information suppressed or cases dismissed because one of the 6 times a bit of information was put on a one of several forms, a box next to the information on the form was not filled with ink, and thus, the information contained therein was suppressed and caused the case to be thrown out. Something like that.

Seriously? You have examples of that actually happening? With a link? Not just some story?

Tell me Mr. Defense attorney, you've never used BS technicalities like that to "get your client off" with something that they knowingly and willingly did?

Nope, never used BS technicalities. However yes I have gotten clients freed when the police broke the law by searching without a warrant or questioning them without a lawyer or filing the charges past the statute of limitations. See? No BS technicalities.

I believe the police should follow the law just like everyone. And when they don't, there should be consequences. I want bad guys caught and punished too -- I live here and don't like crime -- but I don't want to give up my rights to be crime-free.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Seriously? You have examples of that actually happening? With a link? Not just some story?
Its a true story, but there is no link because it was a lowly misdemeanor DWI charge I dealt with. I was not yet certified on Intox and thus had to have another officer be the "chemical analysis". He had ran like 12 tests that night and just failed to fill in a box mark next to the section about the Preventive Maintenance having been completed on the instrument. However, the officer DID fill in the information showing that the instrument had preventive maintenance done within the time period required by statute. The DA even offered to pull the maintenance record off the DHHS public website where the maintenance records of all instruments in the state of viewable by the public at no cost, proving that the information on the box was accurate. The judge dismissed the results of the intox test, and even though she agreed my field sobriety tests showed I had probable cause, she could not convict due to the fact that the tests were peformed on a slight uphill area (like I can literally move mountains at will) thus she had 'reasonable doubt" as to the full impairment of the individual.

It was no big deal because the guy was a real nice fellow who just made a mistake so I wasn't pissed that he got off, I was pissed that such a BS technicality could work in the courts.
To be fair though, the Judge was a recently 'elected' judge who had previously been a magistrate and literally had to recess after every trial to go look up how the law applied to the cases. Judges like this are easily confused by smooth talking defense attorneys. She no longer does criminal courts... I wonder why?




Nope, never used BS technicalities. However yes I have gotten clients freed when the police broke the law by searching without a warrant or questioning them without a lawyer or filing the charges past the statute of limitations. See? No BS technicalities.

I believe the police should follow the law just like everyone. And when they don't, there should be consequences. I want bad guys caught and punished too -- I live here and don't like crime -- but I don't want to give up my rights to be crime-free.
I agree, if rights were violated then I see the reason for such defenses. Ive seen some of the stuff on your website about cases in the media, and I agree with those Ive read (reading the 'media' side of things that is) that those cases were not technicalities for the most part.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

If he didn't, he is pretty dumb.
Did you tell the officer to back off or you will file a complaint?
Just asking, were you guilty?

I didn't tell the officer anything because I don't talk to cops.

I was very clear I wouldn't talk without my attorney there. He didn't care.

At that point I wasn't even sure what the whole case was about or what the charges were.

No I was not guilty. The cops were just too lazy to go after who actually commited the action.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Silly Mike. People are rarely self admittedly guilty of anything.

Thats my beef with society as a whole, people feel that they have a right to "get off" with being charged for a crime that they willingly committed.

There are two kinds of people in the world as far as cops are concerned.

Cops and suspects.
 
I'm confused. Okay, so you're TOLD that you 'have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you'. And the suspect SAYS something. This ruling just confirms that it can be used against them? Just seems redundant, or am I missing something?

I think all criminally-minded individuals should start practicing the phrase, "I invoke my right to remain silent" in sign language.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Its a true story, but there is no link because it was a lowly misdemeanor DWI charge I dealt with. I was not yet certified on Intox and thus had to have another officer be the "chemical analysis". He had ran like 12 tests that night and just failed to fill in a box mark next to the section about the Preventive Maintenance having been completed on the instrument. However, the officer DID fill in the information showing that the instrument had preventive maintenance done within the time period required by statute. The DA even offered to pull the maintenance record off the DHHS public website where the maintenance records of all instruments in the state of viewable by the public at no cost, proving that the information on the box was accurate. The judge dismissed the results of the intox test, and even though she agreed my field sobriety tests showed I had probable cause, she could not convict due to the fact that the tests were peformed on a slight uphill area (like I can literally move mountains at will) thus she had 'reasonable doubt" as to the full impairment of the individual.

Well, I wasn't there and don't know what the laws are like where you are, but that would have something to do with it. If the local laws require certain procedures to be followed and they weren't, then that's not a "loophole."

That's something I debate a lot with people -- if the law says "X must be done" and X is not done, then how is that a loophole? We're just saying that everyone has to obey the law, even the police and DAs. If there were no consequences then there would be no reason for police to follow the rules. I think it works well as a "checks and balances" against potential abuse. Yes, sometimes the guilty may go free, but the other option -- police can do whatever they want -- is worse.

I had a case one time where an officer pulled over my client for having tinted windows. That's a $25 fine. My client was a black kid driving an expensive car (his Dad's, who was a businessman). The officer called for backup, made my client get out of the car, and then after giving him a ticket, did not let him know he could go but instead, while police lights are flashing and the kid (who had never been arrested before) was surrounded by police with guns, asked the kid "Oh, do you mind if I check your windows?" The kid, feeling as if he had no choice said yes and then the officer went into the car, took the keys, and searched the entire car, finding marijuana locked in the trunk.

Now come on. Yes, the kid was technically guilty, but do we want to allow police to do this sort of thing in America?

So yes, his charges were dropped. Some people would call that a "technicality" but since the Constitution requires probable cause before a search, I'd say it supports the law, not defeats it.

(There are, of course, always examples where this can go too far, just like there are examples where it can go too far in the other direction)
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Well, I wasn't there and don't know what the laws are like where you are, but that would have something to do with it. If the local laws require certain procedures to be followed and they weren't, then that's not a "loophole."

That's something I debate a lot with people -- if the law says "X must be done" and X is not done, then how is that a loophole? We're just saying that everyone has to obey the law, even the police and DAs. If there were no consequences then there would be no reason for police to follow the rules. I think it works well as a "checks and balances" against potential abuse. Yes, sometimes the guilty may go free, but the other option -- police can do whatever they want -- is worse.

I had a case one time where an officer pulled over my client for having tinted windows. That's a $25 fine. My client was a black kid driving an expensive car (his Dad's, who was a businessman). The officer called for backup, made my client get out of the car, and then after giving him a ticket, did not let him know he could go but instead, while police lights are flashing and the kid (who had never been arrested before) was surrounded by police with guns, asked the kid "Oh, do you mind if I check your windows?" The kid, feeling as if he had no choice said yes and then the officer went into the car, took the keys, and searched the entire car, finding marijuana locked in the trunk.

Now come on. Yes, the kid was technically guilty, but do we want to allow police to do this sort of thing in America?

So yes, his charges were dropped. Some people would call that a "technicality" but since the Constitution requires probable cause before a search, I'd say it supports the law, not defeats it.

(There are, of course, always examples where this can go too far, just like there are examples where it can go too far in the other direction)

On one of the channels here are old episodes of COPS.

I see that on there all the time.

They stop the car for a license plate lamp out, which are not needed anymore, and they get the people out of the vehicle, search them and find something.

The attitude of the cops is you have to do everything they say without question and they can do what they want.

I am not saying people should be driving around with drugs on them but what probable cause did the officer have to search the individual for a license plate lamp out?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

On one of the channels here are old episodes of COPS.

I see that on there all the time.

They stop the car for a license plate lamp out, which are not needed anymore, and they get the people out of the vehicle, search them and find something.

The attitude of the cops is you have to do everything they say without question and they can do what they want.

I am not saying people should be driving around with drugs on them but what probable cause did the officer have to search the individual for a license plate lamp out?

At the same time, my advice to everyone is this:

DO WHAT THE COPS WANT.

Let your lawyer argue about it afterwards.

Be sure to say "I am not consenting to this search" but if they insist, don't give them a hard time, fight back, or otherwise make a scene, because that will only make it worse.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

At the same time, my advice to everyone is this:

DO WHAT THE COPS WANT.

Let your lawyer argue about it afterward.

Be sure to say "I am not consenting to this search" but if they insist, don't give them a hard time, fight back, or otherwise make a scene, because that will only make it worse.





.



.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Love the video cole. I haven't seen that in years.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

There are two kinds of people in the world as far as cops are concerned.

Cops and suspects.

Umm... No.

And I can't stand it when some asshat tries to tell me, a cop, what I think so ... just no.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Well, I wasn't there and don't know what the laws are like where you are, but that would have something to do with it. If the local laws require certain procedures to be followed and they weren't, then that's not a "loophole."

That's something I debate a lot with people -- if the law says "X must be done" and X is not done, then how is that a loophole? We're just saying that everyone has to obey the law, even the police and DAs. If there were no consequences then there would be no reason for police to follow the rules. I think it works well as a "checks and balances" against potential abuse. Yes, sometimes the guilty may go free, but the other option -- police can do whatever they want -- is worse.

I had a case one time where an officer pulled over my client for having tinted windows. That's a $25 fine. My client was a black kid driving an expensive car (his Dad's, who was a businessman). The officer called for backup, made my client get out of the car, and then after giving him a ticket, did not let him know he could go but instead, while police lights are flashing and the kid (who had never been arrested before) was surrounded by police with guns, asked the kid "Oh, do you mind if I check your windows?" The kid, feeling as if he had no choice said yes and then the officer went into the car, took the keys, and searched the entire car, finding marijuana locked in the trunk.

Now come on. Yes, the kid was technically guilty, but do we want to allow police to do this sort of thing in America?

So yes, his charges were dropped. Some people would call that a "technicality" but since the Constitution requires probable cause before a search, I'd say it supports the law, not defeats it.

(There are, of course, always examples where this can go too far, just like there are examples where it can go too far in the other direction)

Yes, that is a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The consent to search was limited to the windows.

Thats alot different than a box without ink it in, and a judges refusal to accept the actual documentation that backed up the deputy's information on said line that failed to have a box checked.
But like I said, it was a retard judge.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

On one of the channels here are old episodes of COPS.

I see that on there all the time.

They stop the car for a license plate lamp out, which are not needed anymore, and they get the people out of the vehicle, search them and find something.

The attitude of the cops is you have to do everything they say without question and they can do what they want.

I am not saying people should be driving around with drugs on them but what probable cause did the officer have to search the individual for a license plate lamp out?

LOL
This post says all I need to know.

License Plate Lights are not a federally regulated item. It varies from state. If its not required in your state, maybe it still was required in the state that the episode was being filmed in. As it is still required in NC.

And wtih your attitude you've displayed, sorry If I fail to believe everything you say regarding this, its very standard for cop haters to either not listen enough to know what is being said, or intentionally misconstrue what is being said.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

LOL
This post says all I need to know.

License Plate Lights are not a federally regulated item. It varies from state. If its not required in your state, maybe it still was required in the state that the episode was being filmed in. As it is still required in NC.

And wtih your attitude you've displayed, sorry If I fail to believe everything you say regarding this, its very standard for cop haters to either not listen enough to know what is being said, or intentionally misconstrue what is being said.

My point about the license lamp not being needed is that plates are now reflectorized so the headlights of the patrol car light them up.

If you think I misunderstood what happened onthe show, look at a couple of old episodes yourself. It is common practice to bootstrap a minor violation into a search of the vehicle and person.

Yes cop hater. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

My point about the license lamp not being needed is that plates are now reflectorized so the headlights of the patrol car light them up.
So when a suspect leaves the scene of a crime via a vehicle on a dark street with no other vehicles arround, what illuminates the license plate then?

Oh, thats right, the state law required tag light.


If you think I misunderstood what happened onthe show, look at a couple of old episodes yourself. It is common practice to bootstrap a minor violation into a search of the vehicle and person.

Yes cop hater. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Asking for consent to search is not boot straping anything into anything.

Some of the most heinous crimes have been solved via a consent search.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

So when a suspect leaves the scene of a crime via a vehicle on a dark street with no other vehicles arround, what illuminates the license plate then?

Oh, thats right, the state law required tag light.




Asking for consent to search is not boot straping anything into anything.

Some of the most heinous crimes have been solved via a consent search.

You are honestly saying a small bulb above the plate lights up the plate enough to see it clearly? I have had hundreds of cars and it license lamp has never thrown enough light to light up anything.

I didn't say in any of my posts the person was asked if the officer could search. They pull the driver out and search him for weapons then his car. No consent was given. Are you saying consent is needed to search????
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

You are honestly saying a small bulb above the plate lights up the plate enough to see it clearly? I have had hundreds of cars and it license lamp has never thrown enough light to light up anything.

I didn't say in any of my posts the person was asked if the officer could search. They pull the driver out and search him for weapons then his car. No consent was given. Are you saying consent is needed to search????

Nope, but people like to fail to mention when they consented to a search.

There are also other factors that involve the searching of vehicles.
If I smell marijuana, I can search the car, consent or not, and without a warrant.
If the occupants are under 21 and I can observe alcohol in the vehicle, I can search the vehicle.

I didn't watch the episode, but I am highly suspect that the officers just ordered people out and searched then without some sort of probable cause (or consent) that you lacked the ability to recognize because you were too busy going, "OMFG STOPPED FOR A TAG LIGHT OMFG!"
 
So now its like uno?
If you dont say " I HAVE RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ALL YOU PEOPLE HERE DIDNT YOU GUYS TAKE HIGH-SCHOOL HISTORY?!" you have to draw 4 cards?
This is stupid and an attempt to ease us out of our rights as US citizens...

This is complete and utter BS

edit I might of misunderstood the subject here so if I did feel free to correct me ^^
 
Last edited:
So now its like uno?
If you dont say " I HAVE RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ALL YOU PEOPLE HERE DIDNT YOU GUYS TAKE HIGH-SCHOOL HISTORY?!" you have to draw 4 cards?
This is stupid and an attempt to ease us out of our rights as US citizens...

This is complete and utter BS

edit I might of misunderstood the subject here so if I did feel free to correct me ^^

What rights are you losing?
 
So now its like uno?
If you dont say " I HAVE RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ALL YOU PEOPLE HERE DIDNT YOU GUYS TAKE HIGH-SCHOOL HISTORY?!" you have to draw 4 cards?
This is stupid and an attempt to ease us out of our rights as US citizens...

This is complete and utter BS

edit I might of misunderstood the subject here so if I did feel free to correct me ^^


Yeah, think you are a little off base. Plus when you use all capital letters it looks like you're yelling...which kinda compounds things.

Been a pretty civil discussion overall. ;)


.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Yes, that is a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The consent to search was limited to the windows.

Thats alot different than a box without ink it in, and a judges refusal to accept the actual documentation that backed up the deputy's information on said line that failed to have a box checked.
But like I said, it was a retard judge.

Yeah, gotta agree with you here....

A cop forgetting to check off a box verifying that he performed maintence but managed to fill out the maintence log, put in the date of the maintence on said form, and has that information publicly available is, to me, a loophole. The "Law" is there to assure the cop performed the maintence which its clear through other readily available sources that its happened. Unless there was evidence that such potential negligence is common place I would say the spirit of the law in this case and the additional factors should be absolutely sufficient. This sounds less like the cop violating the law and more like a procedural rule was accidently skipped over; a fine technicallity but an important one when you're trying to compare something like that to someone having a constitutional right violated.

To me, getting someone off "On a technicality" is a lawyer finding a situation where a cop made a minor and relatively inconsequential mistake or procedure not judgement, and manipulating that. A situation where a check box is forgotten to be marked once in a dozen times, however its redunandcy check (the actual maintence laog) is filled out. An instance where an officer may've got distracted while signing a number of papers that may be evidence or some such thing and in the middle of starting one he gets distracted by someone and ends up missing the signature on that...yet you can see every item prior to it and after it entered into the log is signed by him. Etc.

Essentially, Criminals getting off not because the officer was criminally negligent or was violating some kind of constitutional or even state law or doing something unethical....but because of simple and reasonable human error that can be reasonably double checked in another fashion and deemed as such with a reasonable amount of doubt.

For example, in Caine's situation, what is the point of the double redundancy of having the officer need to both check the box AND fill out the service records other than to have a backup indication incase something happens with the to the other one. To require both of them as proof that it happened to me seems to be simply adding more beuracracy and procedure to a scenario for no other reason than to try and give the cops more chance for basic simple human error to occur.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Technicalities are Law loopholes are such BS.

As a police officer, what are your thoughts on the various stringent laws that regulate searching?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

As a police officer, what are your thoughts on the various stringent laws that regulate searching?

Im missing what your asking here. The question is so broad as my response would require me to regurgitate the entire Search, Arrest, and Seizure manual.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Im missing what your asking here. The question is so broad as my response would require me to regurgitate the entire Search, Arrest, and Seizure manual.

Mainly whether you think the various laws are too restrictive or not.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

To me, getting someone off "On a technicality" is a lawyer finding a situation where a cop made a minor and relatively inconsequential mistake or procedure not judgement, and manipulating that. A situation where a check box is forgotten to be marked once in a dozen times, however its redunandcy check (the actual maintence laog) is filled out. An instance where an officer may've got distracted while signing a number of papers that may be evidence or some such thing and in the middle of starting one he gets distracted by someone and ends up missing the signature on that...yet you can see every item prior to it and after it entered into the log is signed by him. Etc.

Essentially, Criminals getting off not because the officer was criminally negligent or was violating some kind of constitutional or even state law or doing something unethical....but because of simple and reasonable human error that can be reasonably double checked in another fashion and deemed as such with a reasonable amount of doubt.

From my perspective, that's just simply a "what's good for the goose" situation. If you forget to check a box on any form or sign in the right place or perform some perfunctory responsibility in the course of doing your duty to the government, they are gonna fine, imprison, punish the hell out of you for it. If the government can fine you or dismiss a petition from you for the same minor mistakes, then it's only just and fair that the government be held to the same standard when trying to levy charges against you.
 
Back
Top Bottom