• 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

Mainly whether you think the various laws are too restrictive or not.

Nah, I think they are fine.

Concerning consent to search, you can search the area specified. If I ask, "Can I search your car?" And you say, "Yes." Then I get to search the car. Thats every part of the car, and not limited to anything.
If I say, "Can I search your trunk?" And you say, "Yes." Then I can search the trunk, and thats it.

Concerning searches based upon probable cause, it depends on what it is that gave the probable cause, As it stands now, if there is an odor of marijuana, I can search pretty much the entire vehicle, whereever the item could be reasonably held. You can't tell an officer "NO" to a probable cause search.

Concerning searches incident to arrest, it has been recently upheld that any search incident to arrest of a vehicle has to be in compliance with searching for specific evidence in refernce to the crime that you have probable cause to arrest them on. So say during a DWI arrest, I can search the vehicle for open containers of alcohol, and I typically search for receipts for purchases from local bars with a time/date that match up reasonably to the time I am arresting them at. Although I typically find these in their pockets when I search them, which is allowed incidnet to ANY arrest regardless of looking for evidence or not, because it is a safety concern for us to transport an individual who we don't know if they are armed or not, not to mention it is a felony to bring controlled substances into a jail.

Personally, I don't see any search laws to be too restrictive. Most laws concerning the search of vehicles are not constrictive, as most of the time they fall under the "plain touch" doctrine (this includes smells, and even the feel of an item when doing a "frisk" which is a totally different type of search under Terry v. Ohio), and the fact that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you have items laying out in a vehicle that are not stored away in a trunk or enclosed compartment.

There are a vast majority more restrictions on searches of residences. None of which I do not agree with. You have a high level expectation of privacy in your home, and even probable cause is not always enough to justify searching a home, as you have to be able to articulate a reason why the time frame for obtaining a warrant would cause a loss of the evidence, when for most situations you can post an officer on either side of the home and lock down the residence until the warrant is obtained.

As far as searches for blood, warrants are not too time demanding for most items, DNA is always gonna be there. However, I do not have a problem with NC's law regarding warrantless searches for blood in DWI cases. Alcohol is elminated from the body in a timely manner, in order to preserve the evidence it is important that we obtain the blood quickly, not 4-6 hours later. As in that amount of time one would lose a BAC amount of .06 - .09, which is just about losing enough BAC to not be impaired anymore. As long as an Officer can show they had probable cause to believe the individual was impaired by an impairing substance, then I don't see why the search cannot be made without a warrant. However, with that said. There are restrictions. A. The individual needs to refuse voluntary chemical analysis. B. If Im right next door to the magistrate's office, there is no reason why I can't obtain a search warrant for said blood which may take about 10-30 minutes.

Does that answer your question?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

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.

But, do you get a chance to correct said minor mistakes with documented proof?
If so, then your compairson is not valid.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Thank you very much caine, i'll try to be more exact in my questions next time
 
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.

And those kinds of decisions are rare indeed, and maybe that's why you hear about them from time to time instead of every day.

I have clients who all believe they can win on those things, though. "Look, he wrote that my car is a 2005 and it's really a 2006! Can I get this thrown out?" "Um, NO."

The problem is that some people hear about the other cases and start considering anything that frees a guilty person as a "loophole" when in fact, there may be very good Constitutional reasons why they charges were dismissed.

I am literally finishing a brief today about a case where a young and inexperienced cop was investigating a hit and run accident. He saw tire tracks in the snow leading to my client's driveway with a sign saying "No trespassing, private property." Instead of getting a warrant however he drove up the driveway (which goes about 1/10 of a mile -- you can't see the house from the road because of all the trees) and started searching the damaged car he found. My client came out and was arrested.

Now, if I win, does that mean he gets off on a loophole? Is the 4th amendment a loophole or a requirement?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

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.

I think it depends on the state law as well.

In this particular case, if the law says that the device has to be checked periodically or it's inadmissible, and there is no evidence that it was indeed checked (because no one checked the right box), then yeah, maybe it should have been thrown out, because you can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't know if the device was accurate.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I think it depends on the state law as well.

In this particular case, if the law says that the device has to be checked periodically or it's inadmissible, and there is no evidence that it was indeed checked (because no one checked the right box), then yeah, maybe it should have been thrown out, because you can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't know if the device was accurate.

However, if the maintenance records are public information, posted on a publicly accessible website, where the maintenance sheet is signed by the maintainor of said instrument, then I don't understand what the problem is there.

But, like I said, the judge was a sheep in the courtroom.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

But, do you get a chance to correct said minor mistakes with documented proof?
If so, then your compairson is not valid.

You might get to correct the mistake but you are still going to be penalized for it in some tangible way, even if it is having to appear in court to hear whether or not the correction is accepted.

The comparison is more than valid because the balance of power between the two parties is so extremely off. The state has the power to arrest and end all liberties for the citizen therefore the state should be held to a higher standard...their burden of proof needs to not only be greater than that of the suspect but extreme...beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

However, if the maintenance records are public information, posted on a publicly accessible website, where the maintenance sheet is signed by the maintainor of said instrument, then I don't understand what the problem is there.

But, like I said, the judge was a sheep in the courtroom.

If the one box wasn't checked when it was supposed to be, who's to say the other record was completed when it wasn't supposed to be? There's that shadow of a doubt creeping in...
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

If the one box wasn't checked when it was supposed to be, who's to say the other record was completed when it wasn't supposed to be? There's that shadow of a doubt creeping in...

If you only knew what the system was like, lol.

The same information obtained by the individual completing said form is obtained from the same source as the public website.
The document posted at the instrument is scanned in and published on the website.
:)

The operator is NOT the individual who conducts the regular preventive maintenance on the instrument.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

If you only knew what the system was like, lol.

The same information obtained by the individual completing said form is obtained from the same source as the public website.
The document posted at the instrument is scanned in and published on the website.
:)

The operator is NOT the individual who conducts the regular preventive maintenance on the instrument.

Exactly. So when one box is checked while the other isn't, it means that the confirmation of completion has failed somewhere. Whether that be because of oversight on the part of the cop filling out the form by having not checked the box or because of some maintenance tech having fibbed a bit on his work order...who knows? What we do know is that a mechanism was set in place for important maintenance to be performed and then have its performance confirmed and that mechanism failed so the entire process now falls under suspicion.

Shadow of a doubt creeping right on in...
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Exactly. So when one box is checked while the other isn't, it means that the confirmation of completion has failed somewhere. Whether that be because of oversight on the part of the cop filling out the form by having not checked the box or because of some maintenance tech having fibbed a bit on his work order...who knows? What we do know is that a mechanism was set in place for important maintenance to be performed and then have its performance confirmed and that mechanism failed so the entire process now falls under suspicion.

Shadow of a doubt creeping right on in...

I think you are confused.
The maintenance record is posted at the instrument site. Signed by the FTA Branch individual who performed the maintenance.
The form has a section on it to show maintenance had been completed by FTA Branch and a date is intered into a place. However, there a box next to said portion of the form (because its a multi-use form for both blood and breath, blood not needing maintenance under this form). Box is not inked in, but date for maintenance is filled out.
The same maintenance record that is scanned is published on public website.
The argument was brought in that the maintenance could not be verified because the ink was not filled in the box.
The judge accepts that the form completed by the operator does not show the maintenance has been completed, even though it is evident that the operator intended to do so via putting the information on the box. (fair enough).
The judge then does not allow the prosecution to otherwise show that the maintenance has been completed, by presenting the same document that the operator used to verify that maintenance has been completed.

This is a BS technicality, that would have never held up in superior court, or under most any other judge.

If anything, the prosecuting DA could have appealed the case and won, but then they have to determine whether such an appeal is worth the time, money put in by the court to find this individual guilty. In this case it wasn't, and I agree.
Many times a DA will even mention that they can win an appeal on a case that is lost by a sheep judge, and I say I could give a **** less.
 
This ruling is just obnoxious. If a suspect refuses to speak a word after being advised of their right to remain silent, its clear that they are invoking the right.
Just as clearly, after he does this and begins talking (or talking again) he has given up that right.
Nothing to see here. move along.
 
Just as clearly, after he does this and begins talking (or talking again) he has given up that right.
Nothing to see here. move along.

Exactly. At what point shall the line be drawn?
I say.. as the supreme court says, when you are read your rights, and state you understand them, and at that time you can either state that you wish to not answer any questions or have an attorney present.

The argument that speaking to inform that you do not wish to answer questions is a violation of their 5th amendment rights is absolute bull****, and quite embarrassing to have a member of the Supreme Court (guardians of the constitution) to suggest such a silly ass thing. That argument is not based upon the constitution at all, but based upon the miranda decisions poor adaptation of words that states "right to remain silent" which the supreme court has since even acknowledged that does not exist in that exact manner.

I mean, sure, you have the right to remail silent, but when asked booking questions if you still decide to remain silent, don't complain like a bitch when nobody releases you on bond or continues the arrest process (finger print, photograph, etc) because you refuse to answer the necessary booking questions.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I think you are confused.
The maintenance record is posted at the instrument site. Signed by the FTA Branch individual who performed the maintenance.
The form has a section on it to show maintenance had been completed by FTA Branch and a date is intered into a place. However, there a box next to said portion of the form (because its a multi-use form for both blood and breath, blood not needing maintenance under this form). Box is not inked in, but date for maintenance is filled out.
The same maintenance record that is scanned is published on public website.
The argument was brought in that the maintenance could not be verified because the ink was not filled in the box.
The judge accepts that the form completed by the operator does not show the maintenance has been completed, even though it is evident that the operator intended to do so via putting the information on the box. (fair enough).
The judge then does not allow the prosecution to otherwise show that the maintenance has been completed, by presenting the same document that the operator used to verify that maintenance has been completed.

This is a BS technicality, that would have never held up in superior court, or under most any other judge.

If anything, the prosecuting DA could have appealed the case and won, but then they have to determine whether such an appeal is worth the time, money put in by the court to find this individual guilty. In this case it wasn't, and I agree.
Many times a DA will even mention that they can win an appeal on a case that is lost by a sheep judge, and I say I could give a **** less.

I understand you just fine. But here's the issue: all of those processes are mechanisms by which to determine that procedures were followed and to dispel all doubts that there was any negligence anywhere in the process. You may know that everything was on the up and up in the process but that means jack **** to a man standing in front of a judge under the threat of $10k in fines and other liberties being dispelled as punishment. Think of it this way...if you stop someone and they haven't got their insurance card, their driver's license, and an outdated registration in their car, you don't care if they say "Oh, I was detailing my car and all that stuff I do have, it's just sitting on a box in the garage because I forgot to put it back in the glove box." They may very well have all of that but that's information you need to verify that they are legal. And the issue now is that you have a responsibility to remove that possibly unsafe, uninsured, and unlicensed driver off the road at 10:30PM on a Saturday night. Same thing with that box on that form...it needs to be filled in a certain way and if it's not, then you lose the justification for detaining that suspect because you obviously can't keep your own house in order so what makes the people think you have any business taking responsibility for "rehabilitating" or "punishing" anyone else?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

However, if the maintenance records are public information, posted on a publicly accessible website, where the maintenance sheet is signed by the maintainor of said instrument, then I don't understand what the problem is there.

But, like I said, the judge was a sheep in the courtroom.

Yeah, from what you've said, I tend to agree in this instance.

Judges make mistakes all the time. Usually they err on the other side, against defendants.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Yeah, from what you've said, I tend to agree in this instance.

Judges make mistakes all the time. Usually they err on the other side, against defendants.

Except here. There err on the side for the defendants. Not just in this case, but in several.

We have judges that come down off the bench to give a hug to the defendant after the defendant pleas guilty and then gives a sob story to the judge for leiniency.

I mean, I have no problem with the err on the side of the defendant part, thats the way it should be. But the old "hug a thug" thing kinda pisses me off.

BTW: Hug a thug judge is also no longer on the bench.

The problem is that in district court you get loons who have no clue what they are doing.
In superior court, you get judges who know their ****.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I understand you just fine. But here's the issue: all of those processes are mechanisms by which to determine that procedures were followed and to dispel all doubts that there was any negligence anywhere in the process. You may know that everything was on the up and up in the process but that means jack **** to a man standing in front of a judge under the threat of $10k in fines and other liberties being dispelled as punishment. Think of it this way...if you stop someone and they haven't got their insurance card, their driver's license, and an outdated registration in their car, you don't care if they say "Oh, I was detailing my car and all that stuff I do have, it's just sitting on a box in the garage because I forgot to put it back in the glove box." They may very well have all of that but that's information you need to verify that they are legal. And the issue now is that you have a responsibility to remove that possibly unsafe, uninsured, and unlicensed driver off the road at 10:30PM on a Saturday night. Same thing with that box on that form...it needs to be filled in a certain way and if it's not, then you lose the justification for detaining that suspect because you obviously can't keep your own house in order so what makes the people think you have any business taking responsibility for "rehabilitating" or "punishing" anyone else?

Because Fact, not Appearance, is what matters in court.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Because Fact, not Appearance, is what matters in court.

And the FACT is, someone, somewhere in the procedural chain didn't do what they were supposed to do as evidenced by the form not being filled out properly. And because of that, doubt is cast on the entire case of the State, especially considering it was a cornerstone piece of evidence.

If you can't follow your own procedures, you have no business taking responsibility for enforcing the laws to which those procedures pertain. That's the reasoning.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

And the FACT is, someone, somewhere in the procedural chain didn't do what they were supposed to do as evidenced by the form not being filled out properly. And because of that, doubt is cast on the entire case of the State, especially considering it was a cornerstone piece of evidence.

If you can't follow your own procedures, you have no business taking responsibility for enforcing the laws to which those procedures pertain. That's the reasoning.
So I'll mark you down as a supporter of BS technicalities that have no bearing on the evidence of the case.
Gotcha.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

So I'll mark you down as a supporter of BS technicalities that have no bearing on the evidence of the case.
Gotcha.

And you would be misplacing your frustration if you did. It has everything to do with the evidence of the case. The evidence submitted in the case comes in the form of that paperwork and it is imperative that it be filled out properly just like it would be for the citizen under suspicion to show his proper evidence. If the form is not completed according to procedure, then by all means, it and any fruit of that poisonous tree must be removed entirely from the evidence. At that case, the dismissal is for lack of evidence.


Does it suck for the cop who had a clean collar otherwise? Absolutely. But the balance of power between the citizen and his government is so disparate that it is imperative the government be held to such standards in all things lest it gain too much control and abuse the authority it has.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

And you would be misplacing your frustration if you did. It has everything to do with the evidence of the case. The evidence submitted in the case comes in the form of that paperwork and it is imperative that it be filled out properly just like it would be for the citizen under suspicion to show his proper evidence. If the form is not completed according to procedure, then by all means, it and any fruit of that poisonous tree must be removed entirely from the evidence. At that case, the dismissal is for lack of evidence.


Does it suck for the cop who had a clean collar otherwise? Absolutely. But the balance of power between the citizen and his government is so disparate that it is imperative the government be held to such standards in all things lest it gain too much control and abuse the authority it has.

The refusal of a judge to receive evidence in a case is a failure on the judges behalf, not that of the prosecution.
The refusal of the judge to allow the public website's information to be used is a loophole.

The addition of ink on a piece of paper does not mean the person is not guilty of a crime.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

The refusal of a judge to receive evidence in a case is a failure on the judges behalf, not that of the prosecution.
The refusal of the judge to allow the public website's information to be used is a loophole.

The addition of ink on a piece of paper does not mean the person is not guilty of a crime.

No, but it does mean that the foundation of the evidence is one of shifting sand...under suspicion. Anything following that break in procedure is also under suspicion and cast under a shadow of doubt.

That's why the procedures are in place. That's why you follow them to the letter.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

And those kinds of decisions are rare indeed, and maybe that's why you hear about them from time to time instead of every day.

I have clients who all believe they can win on those things, though. "Look, he wrote that my car is a 2005 and it's really a 2006! Can I get this thrown out?" "Um, NO."

The problem is that some people hear about the other cases and start considering anything that frees a guilty person as a "loophole" when in fact, there may be very good Constitutional reasons why they charges were dismissed.

I am literally finishing a brief today about a case where a young and inexperienced cop was investigating a hit and run accident. He saw tire tracks in the snow leading to my client's driveway with a sign saying "No trespassing, private property." Instead of getting a warrant however he drove up the driveway (which goes about 1/10 of a mile -- you can't see the house from the road because of all the trees) and started searching the damaged car he found. My client came out and was arrested.

Now, if I win, does that mean he gets off on a loophole? Is the 4th amendment a loophole or a requirement?

Good answer. Thanks. Would also be interested in hearing how "today's brief" turns out. Would never have thought that a cop in the line of duty would ever be restricted by a "no trespassing" sign. (guess we need to get some of those babies painted up over at our crack labs.... ;) )



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

Good answer. Thanks. Would also be interested in hearing how "today's brief" turns out. Would never have thought that a cop in the line of duty would ever be restricted by a "no trespassing" sign. (guess we need to get some of those babies painted up over at our crack labs.... ;) )

No, the "no trespassing" sign merely means that the cop was aware that it was a private driveway and not a public road. Putting up a sign won't keep them off your property if they (a) have a warrant or (b) have "exigent circumstances" to enter the property absent a warrant (such as actively chasing you there!)
 
Back
Top Bottom