Current Events > Supreme Court says officers don't need to read Miranda rights to suspects

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1539977165269254146

Well that's a pretty dramatic reversal

It feels like we are on the verge of the entire american system crumbling, from politics, to law, to medicine, to economy

They need to CHANGE THAT DEXTER EPISODE NOW! Would've changed season 7!!!

Is the Supreme Court just trying to make several changes and rulings before the other one retires?

We're three months away from the Supreme Court ruling that, yes, cops can legally beat you when they feel like it.

Land of the free baby

Pack. The. Courts.

Biofighter55 posted...

Is the Supreme Court just trying to make several changes and rulings before the other one retires?

Probably.

Supreme Court needs to be disbanded. They are no longer upholding the rights of citizens

Biofighter55 posted...

Is the Supreme Court just trying to make several changes and rulings before the other one retires?

Breyer's retirement won't change the ideological makeup of the court

America will soon be like Mad Max.

At first I thought this was nothing as you still have to have your Miranda rights read to you for any confessions or discussions to be used against you in the court of law.

But then I thought more about it and how this could lead to cops being more aggressive and coercive on trying to get people to confess if they have no fear of violating Miranda rights and being sued over them.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Won't stop cops from whole sale ceasing telling you your Miranda rights.

Though besides the word of an officer, until recently, was there ever any proof that you were or were not read your rights?

CableZL posted...

Well that's a pretty dramatic reversal

No its not. Theyre asking if you can sue an officer for a mistake. Qualified immunity.

Whats to stop someone from just saying "oh they never read me my rights"

Or do you have to sign something

SauI_Goodman posted...

Whats to stop someone from just saying "oh they never read me my rights"

Or do you have to sign something

The state will always believe a uniformed officer over a citizen

duh man, I assumed everyone knew that and was shit posting from the get go

*its an extension of their qualified immunity I would assume, so that is what people would need to target

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

wrong, the SCOTUS found that miranda rights are not rights.
[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


it appears that it is. here's the full ruling

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf

His written statement was admitted against him at trial.

The question we must decide is whether a violation of the Miranda rules provides a basis for a claim under 1983. We hold that it does not. If a Miranda violation were tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, our answer would of course be different.

the SCOTUS argument is that miranda is just a prophylactic, the dissent is "no it isn't"

eaglei3 posted...

At first I thought this was nothing as you still have to have your Miranda rights read to you for any confessions or discussions to be used against you in the court of law.

But then I thought more about it and how this could lead to cops being more aggressive and coercive on trying to get people to confess if they have no fear of violating Miranda rights and being sued over them.

then you read my post and you saw that you don't have to have your miranda rights read to you for confessions to be used against you in the court of law right

right

FortuneCookie posted...

We're three months away from the Supreme Court ruling that, yes, cops can legally beat you when they feel like it.

I mean, they already ruled that border patrol agents can come into your house and beat you

That's literally not what that says. People can't sue civilly for not being read their rights. Coerced statements will still get thrown out in court.

FortuneCookie posted...

We're three months away from the Supreme Court ruling that, yes, cops can legally beat you when they feel like it.

When hasn't that been the case really?

SauI_Goodman posted...

Whats to stop someone from just saying "oh they never read me my rights"

Or do you have to sign something

Best practice is to get a written waiver alongside the verbal waiver. That's also what dash/body cam is for. If none of those exist, then it's just gonna be the cop's word vs the suspect's.

Damn SCOTUS is going to get gutted at this rate lol

Jabodie posted...

Damn SCOTUS is going to get gutted at this rate lol

By who? Dems are cowardly centrist fuckwits and won't pack it.

Sackgurl posted...

it appears that it is. here's the full ruling

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf

His written statement was admitted against him at trial.

The question we must decide is whether a violation of the Miranda rules provides a basis for a claim under 1983. We hold that it does not. If a Miranda violation were tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, our answer would of course be different.

the SCOTUS argument is that miranda is just a prophylactic, the dissent is "no it isn't"

As usual Sackgurl is more detailed and eloquent than I - seems the underlying basis *would* allow un Mirandized statements to be used against you

Between this, defending the NRA gun free zone hypocrisy, and defending the Uvalde city council removing reporters, Mr_Hangman sure seems to frequently support conservative events/movements.

Red Ranger too, though I haven't seen as much of his/her posts to draw a pattern...

lilORANG posted...

That's literally not what that says. People can't sue civilly for not being read their rights. Coerced statements will still get thrown out in court.

Post 25

Nerevar791 posted...

By who? Dems are cowardly centrist fuckwits and won't pack it.

How do you propose the Dems pack it when Manchin and Sinema won't give them the votes needed?

Shamino posted...

How do you propose the Dems pack it when Manchin and Sinema won't give them the votes needed?

They should be hammering them with pressure every single day. Threaten to fund and canvas for their competitors. Promise to run them out of office if they don't comply. If the GOP can get their people in line so can the Dems. This is a bullshit excuse.

Ruvan22 posted...

Post 25

Miranda is a prophylactic. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a cop must read you Miranda." There is a protection against self-incrimination, and a right to counsel, so the Court made Miranda rights up as a way to protect against coercive interrogations.

so since failure to read Miranda isn't a direct Constitutional violation, you can't sue under 1983. If this dude's interrogation was actually coercive, then he could still sue. He just won't win for the reason that Miranda wasnt read.

So we have no rights if we interact with cops and no freedom from religion. Women will soon have no bodily autonomy. All LGBTQ+ will be branded child molesters.

Can I worry yet?

Sackgurl posted...

then you read my post and you saw that you don't have to have your miranda rights read to you for confessions to be used against you in the court of law right

right

No, that is not true with the court ruling. The original intent of Miranda vs Arizona is still there as you have to have your Miranda rights read to you for anything you say to be used legally against you in the court of law. That protection is not gone.

The problem is, the usage of this law has always been a pain in the ass and can take forever to end a dispute on what can and can't be used on courts based when rights might have been given to a suspect. The bad thing is appeals on this can take someone months or years while they potentially remain in jail.

What lead to this case today is Tekoh had his 5th ammendment rights violated when confessions/statements he made without having his Miranda Rights given to him were used by the prosecutor in his case.

Tekoh sued the police officer that recorded the statements. The Supreme Court ruling today found that no police officer can be held responsible and sued for 5th ammendment violations because they did not read someone their Miranda Rights. The part that does violate the 5th amendment is only when the prosecution uses those statements and the court allowing it.

As I said earlier though, this shield for cops could embolden some of the bad cops out there. It does also weaken the Miranda Rights in regards to what a plaintiff can sue for when they make statements under duress or confusion without their Miranda rights being given.

lilORANG posted...

Miranda is a prophylactic. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a cop must read you Miranda." There is a protection against self-incrimination, and a right to counsel, so the Court made Miranda rights up as a way to protect against coercive interrogations.

so since failure to read Miranda isn't a direct Constitutional violation, you can't sue under 1983. If this dude's interrogation was actually coercive, then he could still sue. He just won't win for the reason that Miranda wasnt read.

Sackgurl was (I believe, they can correct me if I'm wrong) not discussing the ability to sue - rather that the court arrived on *this* decision because they believe that informing someone of their rights (Miranda) was not required under the fifth amendment.

The SCOTUS and the Senate are no longer legitimate institutions of the U.S. government. Might as well cut off the infection to save the rest of the body

Ruvan22 posted...

Sackgurl was (I believe, they can correct me if I'm wrong) not discussing the ability to sue - rather that the court arrived on *this* decision because they believe that informing someone of their rights (Miranda) was not required under the fifth amendment.

It's not required, and the original Court that decided Miranda v Arizona said as much. That's what prophylactic means. The exclusionary rule is also technically prophylactic. Just because we've developed mechanisms to deal with and remedy constitutional violations doesn't mean they are "required" by the constitution. Section 1983 grants a cause of action for constitutional violations, not for neglecting prophylactic remedies.

SCOTUS is intent on proving every doomsayer right

The statement in the OP is not an accurate statement of what the court actually ruled. Miranda still exists and is still a thing. The court did not throw it out.

This case was about a persons right to sue for damages based on the police or state failing to Mirandize the person and trying to use that statement in court. They are very different things. This is troubling and IMO not a good ruling but the OP is not accurate.

hockeybub89 posted...

So we have no rights if we interact with cops and no freedom from religion. Women will soon have no bodily autonomy. All LGBTQ+ will be branded child molesters.

Can I worry yet?

Of course not, youre still in the Land of the Free as long as you do whatever the right is okay with you doing

RedRanger posted...

No its not. Theyre asking if you can sue an officer for a mistake. Qualified immunity.

Thanks for the correction.

bad ruling

lilORANG posted...

It's not required, and the original Court that decided Miranda v Arizona said as much. That's what prophylactic means. The exclusionary rule is also technically prophylactic. Just because we've developed mechanisms to deal with and remedy constitutional violations doesn't mean they are "required" by the constitution. Section 1983 grants a cause of action for constitutional violations, not for neglecting prophylactic remedies.

My apologies, my grammar wasn't clear - I wasn't stating that Miranda was required under the fifth amendment, as much as this ruling seems to set in stone that it isn't. So I agree with you that it isn't spelled out - I don't know if I agree with your use of the word "prophylactic", as there are a lot of laws based on interpretations of amendments.

solosnake posted...

It feels like we are on the verge of the entire american system crumbling, from politics, to law, to medicine, to economy

Yep.