Miranda You have the right to sortive and for only 14 days!!!

news.yahoo.com...
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
---------Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without violating the person's constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.

"In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.
the death of a thousand cuts is a good way to see the louse of our rights as they are wittled away . at this point the poilce now have a way to detain a person and question them to any degree they wish just by wating the 14 days .
so jail them wate 14 days then wheen there right to a lawer is goin question them.
lol to all you arm chair militants lets see what you have to say about this

[edit on 2-8-2010 by xxcalbier]

Well I tried revitalizing a thread about this from back in may, but it didn't seem to catch on so hopefully this one will. As soon as I read that I felt extremely sick to my stomach.

Can you say buh bye right see you later?

you meen no one cares taht the poilce now have a way to tataly STRIP them from ALL rights??
I meeen take the 14 day part and how they can question you after that amount of time has passed .It only says you have to be arested ONCE then 14 days later all rights are OFF and this could easly be use after that ANY TIME thye want to question you for ANY THING.

lol whatever, they can question me all they want, i just wont say a dam thing!

Originally posted by xxcalbier
you meen no one cares taht the poilce now have a way to tataly STRIP them from ALL rights??
I meeen take the 14 day part and how they can question you after that amount of time has passed .It only says you have to be arested ONCE then 14 days later all rights are OFF and this could easly be use after that ANY TIME thye want to question you for ANY THING.

The case has nothing to do with the rights. You still have all of them. It only has to do with the necessity of a warning. The whole rationale behind Miranda v Arizona was that custodial questioning was coercive and a person in those coercive circumstances should be explicitly notified of his rights. Once the coercion ends, so does the rationale for the warning.

reply to post by xxcalbier


I know, I know *Headesk* I am just not understanding the lack of outcry about this.

You have to break your silence to say I am invoking my right to remain silent? This is only the beginning of the end. This will lead into it being law that we must answer the questions of law enforcement.

Come on, we have the right not to remain silent about our disgust of losing our right to remain silent. Loving the apathy here people.

4nsicphd are you saying coercive measures have ended then?
No this is definitely a taking away of rights.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by calstorm]

Again this has nothing to do with loss of rights, once placed under arrest or in interview prior arrest you are read your rights. Once released your rights expire, this 14 day is actually and extension because under normal circumstance they would expire the second you walked out on your own period. After questioning is over and any time after you leave the officer may have new information about a case and may want to ask you some more questions this is legal at any time with out rights being read, only in the case of an arrest is your rites ever read to you, and if so determined at some point that you are the wrong party you are set free, or you get an attorney and so on. Again your rights are only brought into play once placed under arrest, if you are ever brought in for questioning it is your choice to answerer or to leave if not placed under arrest, they will use this tactic to get info from you especially if they think your guilty, so never answerer any questions just simple get up to leave and at that time it forces there hand to either let you go or place you under arrest and then read you your rights. But again once set free, your rights expire period this 14 day extension is a good thing because no other state has this to protect you. Example I let you go and a few hours latter question you again as long as I don’t place you under arrest I do not have to read you your rights. But you give me information that leads me to believe you are guilty of something at that time I can arrest you read you your rights and use the information you just now gave me prior being put under arrest to help convict. It’s all legal mumbo jumbo as they say. Bottom line never give out information about anyone at anytime period and if ever put under arrest no matter what for get a lawyer and shut your mouth.
Ok my bad I see that they do not have to read your rights to again, but this is only for general questioning again they would have to place you under arrest in order to have to read you your rights. This is a little trick the way it is worded but my statements still stand. Ask if your under arrest if not walk away, if so then they must read your rights again innless its with in the 14 day time frame. I can understand this, because anyone whom has been arrested knows they want you for something, and by then would have gotten a lawyer or knows enough to keep there mouth shut.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by drmeola]

reply to post by xxcalbier

lets see what you have to say about this

I think I don't understand it.

A police officer does not "grant" me a right to remain silent by informing me that I may. I may do or not do as I please. I see the Miranda warning as a courtesy notice. A polite reminder that if I choose to not answer his questions, the fact of doing so is not a punishable offense.

From the article:

Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once
the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without
violating the person's constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.

This seems a bit backwards to me. I would tend to think that it would not be inappropritate for an officer to attempt questioning sooner after the warning rather than later. For example, if someone is arrested, they are given their Miranda warning, and immediately they state their intent to remain silent and request the presence of an attourney. The officer acknowledges this, informs him that they are being taken to the station and they are asked to wait in a room. Five minutes later the officer returns, explains that their attourney is en route and immediately begins asking questions. To which the person in custody may then choose to answer, or refuse to answer. "No, I'll wait for the attourney," seems like an appropriate response to me.

If anyone has other viewpoints, I'd be willing to consider them...but this scenario seems preferable to me than a suspect being released, and then 14 days later the officer randomly shows up at heir residence and attempts questioning again without issuing another Miranda warning.

The courts decision that an additional warning is not required after 14 days seems both peculiar and counterintuitive to me. I mean...if an officer attempts questioning five minutes after a Miranda warning, is he supposed to issue another warning first?

I don't understand what the intent of this judgement is.

From the article:

The high court said for the first time that a suspect's
request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the
person is released from police custody.

...so, officer arrests a suspect, issues Miranda warning, then releases them? Then 14 days later they show up again to ask questions, but the state is no longer obligated to provide an attourney? This seems, again...peculiar. How long does this ineligibility last? If someone is issued a Miranda warning, and then is arrested ten years later for something entirely else, are they ineligible for a state attorney? What if they ask for one, and one is provided. And then 14 days go by. Is that attourney now "free" and again the state is no longer required to provde one?

I'm uncertain what the intent here is, and I'm not sure whether the journalist who wrote the article did a poor job of reporting, or whether the court's decision was ambiguous.

Originally posted by calstorm
reply to post by xxcalbier

 

I know, I know *Headesk* I am just not understanding the lack of outcry about this.

You have to break your silence to say I am invoking my right to remain silent? This is only the beginning of the end. This will lead into it being law that we must answer the questions of law enforcement.

Come on, we have the right not to remain silent about our disgust of losing our right to remain silent. Loving the apathy here people.

4nsicphd are you saying coercive measures have ended then?
No this is definitely a taking away of rights.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by calstorm]

No, it's a takiung away of the warning. Have you actually read the court opinion? I didn't think so.Do that and tell me where Escobedo was even implicitly overruled. It wasn't.

I think many people are misunderstanding this decision. The police are still required to Mirandize anyone who is placed under arrest and you still retain your right to have legal council present during your questioning. The key question that the SCOTUS sought to clarify was "HOW LONG" those Miranda rights last AFTER you've been released. The premise was that once Mirandized, those Miranda Rights live in perpetuity with respect to the case in which you were originally detained. The SCOTUS determined that this was not the case. The opinion clearly states that Miranda Rights are situational, pertaining to your arrest, and not case-based. As a result, if there is not sufficient evidence to hold you for the commission of a crime then you must be released. One contention was that your Miranda Rights expired the instant you were processed for release. The other contention was that those Miranda Rights lived in perpetuity so that if you had invoked your right to council, then the police could NEVER question you in the future about the case without having your attorney present.

The SCOTUS applied both logic and wisdom when arriving at the current decision. In order to avoid proceedural abuses by the police, the SCOTUS determined that 14 days was sufficient to keep the police from hounding you the second you walked out of the department. By the same token, they also agreed that Miranda was specific to an arrest and once released -aka: no longer under arrest - there was no need for continued Miranda protections.

Keep in mind, under the 5th Ammendment you have the right to avoid self-incrimination if compelled to offer testimony by court order. Additionally, it is your personal prerogative to NOT speak to a police officer regarding a crime with the exception of identifying yourself. So, if you find the police at your door asking questions about a crime, you do NOT have to offer answers. Furthermore, as a FREE person who may be questioned by the police, you ALWAYS have the right to contact your lawyer before saying a word. Again, Miranda Rights were introduced to guarnatee that right to those in police custody.

Hope this clears it up a bit!

Originally posted by drmeola
Again this has nothing to do with loss of rights, once placed under arrest or in interview prior arrest you are read your rights. Once released your rights expire, this 14 day is actually and extension because under normal circumstance they would expire the second you walked out on your own period. After questioning is over and any time after you leave the officer may have new information about a case and may want to ask you some more questions this is legal at any time with out rights being read, only in the case of an arrest is your rites ever read to you, and if so determined at some point that you are the wrong party you are set free, or you get an attorney and so on. Again your rights are only brought into play once placed under arrest, if you are ever brought in for questioning it is your choice to answerer or to leave if not placed under arrest, they will use this tactic to get info from you especially if they think your guilty, so never answerer any questions just simple get up to leave and at that time it forces there hand to either let you go or place you under arrest and then read you your rights. But again once set free, your rights expire period this 14 day extension is a good thing because no other state has this to protect you. Example I let you go and a few hours latter question you again as long as I don’t place you under arrest I do not have to read you your rights. But you give me information that leads me to believe you are guilty of something at that time I can arrest you read you your rights and use the information you just now gave me prior being put under arrest to help convict. It’s all legal mumbo jumbo as they say. Bottom line never give out information about anyone at anytime period and if ever put under arrest no matter what for get a lawyer and shut your mouth.
Ok my bad I see that they do not have to read your rights to again, but this is only for general questioning again they would have to place you under arrest in order to have to read you your rights. This is a little trick the way it is worded but my statements still stand. Ask if your under arrest if not walk away, if so then they must read your rights again innless its with in the 14 day time frame. I can understand this, because anyone whom has been arrested knows they want you for something, and by then would have gotten a lawyer or knows enough to keep there mouth shut.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by drmeola]

Whar rights???
You have the right under Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) to counsel, and that never expires.
You have the 5th Amendment right to silence and that never expires, even at the trial.
All the case says is they don't have to tell you again about those rights if they already told you more than two weeks before.
The article cited in the OP was really poorly written. Look at the words of the actual SCOTUS Opinion at www.law.cornell.edu...

You are only mirandized when you are considered to be 'in custody'. If you are 'free to go at any time' then you do not need to have your rights read. Anything said under those circumstances you are volunteering and can be used to build a case against you. This is a common misconception that people have, that you must have your rights read before -any- questioning takes place.