Supreme Court Rules Police Can Question Suspects Without Lawyers

Great. Another slap in the face. Imagine how this is going to be used against people now. Laws can be bended and loop holes found so police will get the upper hand.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police, under certain circumstances, can initiate an interrogation of a suspect without the defendant's lawyer being present.

By a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority overruled a 23-year-old Supreme Court decision that barred the police from initiating questioning after a defendant asserted the right to an attorney at an arraignment or similar proceeding.

The 1986 decision held that once a defendant invoked the right to counsel, only the suspect, and not the police, can initiate the contact.

I know what they are trying to do here, they are trying to get to the terrorists before they can get a lawyer in the room to defend them.


Here's what Scalia had to say about this..

In overruling the 1986 decision, Scalia said, "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present."

Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the 1986 decision, disagreed.

In dissent, Stevens said the dubious benefits of overruling the decision are far outweighed by damage to the rule of law and the integrity of the constitutional right to an attorney.

So finding criminals and treating them like # just because they are criminals is okay?! They are people too you know and I for one am against this decision.

www.reuters.com

[edit on 5/26/2009 by Tentickles]

You still have the option of saying nothing until your lawyer gets there . . .

reply to post by xxpigxx


What if it is a child that doesnt know his/her rights?
Or an immigrant?

Say the police are badgering you with hateful remarks trying to bait you into talking...

reply to post by Tentickles


You do have a point.

I do not agree with the decision, but people do need to know their rights . . .

In this case as I read about it, the SCOTUS is correct. Twice the defendant relinquished his right to counsul. Once might have been different but, being stupid enough to do it twice, then your at your own peril. Once after already having a lawyer. If you intend to commit a crime like he did and not know that to speak to the cops for any reason is a damned foolish thing to do, he deserves what he gets. On top of everything, this guy murdered an innnocent for no reason. Let his butt fry!! This ruling did not undermine the fifth Amendment in any way. You still have to absolute right to keep your mouth shut and demand a lawyer.
Zindo

[edit on 5/26/2009 by ZindoDoone]

Am I missing something, or does this article not state the conditions under which this new lawer-less interrogation is ok?
It's nice to know that they've made an official on-the-record decision to screw us, but I crave details.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I think it is more of an issue because people do not know their rights.

reply to post by Tentickles


Anyone in this country that doesn't know what the fifth Amendment is does not deserve to be here. Every damned cop show tells everyone about the fifth Amendment and what it means. Your miranda rights are drilled into most folks every day. What this idiot did was stupid, If you ignore your lawyers admonishment to shut the hell up and let him do his jog, then your the one that gets screwed. Ignorance of your rights are your fault. Not the cops fault!

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Thanks exactly it, people do not know their rights even though it is drilled into them on TV and by the Cops, this is just another way to confuse people.

reply to post by Tentickles


Just how stupid do you need to be, Amigo? Its not up to the cops to educate you on your rights. How confusing is it to know that it is your absolute right that you shut your mouth, no matter what your told by the authorities, and demand a lawyer and only talk to him? Its not rocket science! You don't need to know all the nuances of the law to comprehend that small point! Do you really think its that confusing?

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Well youre not getting my point of view.

We here on ATS know it is our job to learn and protect our rights.

The sheeple, however, long having the relationship of sucking on the government's teat, always assume it is for others to teach them these things...

Catch what Im trying to say?

As a Louisiana Resident who has followed this case VERY closely, I have to speak up and say that the Reuters article is full of crap!!!

Montejo was questioned, then asked for a lawyer & the Gretna Cops (not exactly renown for their honesty) and St. Tammany Cops still continued to question him.

On the DAY he was assigned a lawyer, the cops DID NOT TELL him he had a lawyer & took him out to visit the crime scene, under the pretense of looking for the weapon used in the murder. His lawyer went to the jail to speak with him & he was gone.

Montejo was told that the cops wanted to take him to find the weapon and told him that he did not have a lawyer. Montejo was taken to the murder scene with the cops.

While at/on the way to the crime scene the cop tell Montejo, hey, let's just play pretend for a few, okay, let's say you did do this, what would you write in a letter to the wife & family of the guy who died? Here's a piece of paper, just put it on there.

And that piece of paper was what later led to the man's conviction in court.

All the while, his court appointed atty is wondering why his client isn't in the jail where he's supposed to be.

read it

So does this overturn miranda warnings?

reply to post by redhatty


hhahaha

im sure thats pretty close to how it went down as well..

when cops think they can outsmart you they throw it all out on the line.

unfortunately, maybe one has to "chalk it up to experience" ..

but i agree with others as well, should have known better!

reply to post by redhatty


That certainly is different but, its still real stupid to talk for any reason with the authorities for any reason without your attorney. I don't care if the sheeple can't comprehend that miniscule bit of truth. They sould stop swallowing the crap, like tenticles is saying and start standing up for their rights and learn them! Its your responsibility to know what to do if your willing to be a crook. The point is, they guy actualy did murder someone. Its not like he was an innocent man here.

Zindo

reply to post by ExPostFacto


No it doesn't. The 1966 SCOTUS decision is still madatory. You just have to be smart enough to understand what your told about your rights and follow them!
Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


People trust the police too much and assume things they do while under arrest will not be used against them.

It is sad but true.

Most people affected are the poor and minorities who don't fully understand their rights due to various reasons.

anyway,

Citing a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Montoya v. Collins, 955 F. 2d 279 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court reasoned that the prophylactic protection of Jackson is not triggered unlessand until the defendant has actually requested a lawyer orhas otherwise asserted his Sixth Amendment right tocounsel. 974 So. 2d, at 1260–1261, and n. 68. Because Montejo simply stood mute at his 72-hour hearing while the judge ordered the appointment of counsel, he had made no such request or assertion. So the proper inquiry,the court ruled, was only whether he had knowingly,intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to havecounsel present during the interaction with the police. Id., at 1261. And because Montejo had been read his Miranda rights and agreed to waive them, the Court answered that question in the affirmative, 974 So. 2d, at 1262, and up-held the conviction.

PDF file of court opinion

reply to post by jam321


Jam, the excuse of being poor and minority is disengenuous. Most poor people are not ignorant nor stupid. Most minorities aren't stupid either! I agree that this police force is not one of the most law abiding but still, the fact remains that they actualy did catch the right guy and legaly got him to implicate himself. It's unfortunate, but it is legal for the authorities to use these tactics to get the information they want. Thats the reason for the Fifth Amendment and the Miranda decision. You'd think that even the most ignorant among us, after 30+ years would know this simple right and take advantage of it!

Zindo

[edit on 5/26/2009 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by Tentickles


This is why I will never talk to the cops. Never. It may make me look guilty to say nothing, but if they have no evidence, then they have no case. Not that I plan to commit crimes, but I dont want to be the guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and get sentenced to a felony I didn't commit.