Dangerous Precedent being set here?

Platapus · 08-17-14, 12:49 PM

One of the important issues concerns what exactly is a Miranda Warning?

Being read your "Miranda Rights" does NOT establish the right to remain silent. All persons (not limited to citizens) in the US already have a right to remain silent

"...or shall any person ...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

All a Miranda Warning does is remind/inform the person of their already existing right to remain silent. Therefore it does not matter when a person exercises their right to remain silent with regard to if/when they are given their Miranda Warning.

Unfortunately, the courts have seen it differently at times. The courts have recognized that there are exceptions to Miranda

Even if a suspect is in custody, officer's statements do not meet the standard of custodial interrogation unless they are either express or equivalent statements, which are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response
Police hostage negotiations are not interrogations
A secretly taped meeting between a suspect and a police officer, where the suspect attended voluntarily
While in custody, Miranda is not required if the suspect is unaware that he is voluntarily talking to a police officer
Police may ask standard booking question without necessitating Miranda warnings
The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...a-lawyers.html)

Talk about loopholes.

Lets take a look at that last one again as it is becoming more common.

The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety

1. Who decides what is necessary for public safety?
2. What exactly is and ain't public safety?
3. What are the boundaries (time/location) for "public" "safety"?
4. At what point does an individual's rights become subordinate to the "public" "safety"?

An increasing slippery slope under the emotional umbrella of "for the greater good/safety".

I did not know Camel's had noses that big.

08-17-14, 12:49 PM	#10
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,395 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	One of the important issues concerns what exactly is a Miranda Warning? Being read your "Miranda Rights" does NOT establish the right to remain silent. All persons (not limited to citizens) in the US already have a right to remain silent "...or shall any person ...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" All a Miranda Warning does is remind/inform the person of their already existing right to remain silent. Therefore it does not matter when a person exercises their right to remain silent with regard to if/when they are given their Miranda Warning. Unfortunately, the courts have seen it differently at times. The courts have recognized that there are exceptions to Miranda Even if a suspect is in custody, officer's statements do not meet the standard of custodial interrogation unless they are either express or equivalent statements, which are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response Police hostage negotiations are not interrogations A secretly taped meeting between a suspect and a police officer, where the suspect attended voluntarily While in custody, Miranda is not required if the suspect is unaware that he is voluntarily talking to a police officer Police may ask standard booking question without necessitating Miranda warnings The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...a-lawyers.html) Talk about loopholes. Lets take a look at that last one again as it is becoming more common. The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety 1. Who decides what is necessary for public safety? 2. What exactly is and ain't public safety? 3. What are the boundaries (time/location) for "public" "safety"? 4. At what point does an individual's rights become subordinate to the "public" "safety"? An increasing slippery slope under the emotional umbrella of "for the greater good/safety". I did not know Camel's had noses that big. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.