SCOTUS - Miranda Civil Suits No Longer Allowed

[VaporTrail]

Because this topic isn't going to gain much traction in the culture war, it probably went under everyone's radar. Law enforcement has to read you your Miranda rights prior to detaining you to help prevent self-incrimination. This right is still intact and was not changed from the ruling. If you get detained, and your Miranda rights are not read to you, your case will likely be thrown out (same as before). What is changed is that now you are not allowed to seek renumeration via civil suit for anything untoward that happens to you. 

Government immunity is bullshit. Fixing this would also be a step toward fixing all the bullshit that people were pissed about leading to the 2020 riots. This is the only SCOTUS decision of the last 2 weeks that I outright dislike. 

[nickers]

11 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

Because this topic isn't going to gain much traction in the culture war, it probably went under everyone's radar. Law enforcement has to read you your Miranda rights prior to detaining you to help prevent self-incrimination. This right is still intact and was not changed from the ruling. If you get detained, and your Miranda rights are not read to you, your case will likely be thrown out (same as before). What is changed is that now you are not allowed to seek renumeration via civil suit for anything untoward that happens to you. 

Government immunity is bullshit. Fixing this would also be a step toward fixing all the bullshit that people were pissed about leading to the 2020 riots. This is the only SCOTUS decision of the last 2 weeks that I outright dislike. 

Shes an evil drunken Slut... I expected nothing less...

[MLD Woody]

So it's just more immunity for cops / government? Lovely 

[Axe]

22 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

So it's just more immunity for cops / government? Lovely 

And more ignorance from you..

Who's surprised?

[htownbrown]

Well, when you look at the context of the case they were looking at (Tekoh vs Vega), it makes more sense.

The accused thought his miranda rights were violated, even though he was not under arrest at the time of his interrogation and subsequent written confession.  He claimed he was coerced into a false confession through threats of violence, which the officer/PD could still be held responsible for, if it can be proven.  I'm guessing it could not be proven, so the accused went after a 5th amendment rights violation. 

To be fair, the accused was acquitted, so maybe there is something to his story of a false coerced confession.  However, it would be extremely risky to interrogate a suspect without arresting him first, if your going to be held liable.  Who would want to ask any questions if that were the case?

Essentially, if the SCOTUS had the opposite opinion, defense lawyers everywhere could argue nothing you say, before you're arrested, should be admissible in a court of law.

I'm no Saul Goodman, but I'm not seeing the ruling as outrageous.  As you stated, we still have miranda rights.  Maybe you're wanting to amend the law so police have to read us our rights at every interaction? 

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

11 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

So it's just more immunity for cops / government? Lovely 

[calfoxwc]

7 hours ago, htownbrown said:

Well, when you look at the context of the case they were looking at (Tekoh vs Vega), it makes more sense.

The accused thought his miranda rights were violated, even though he was not under arrest at the time of his interrogation and subsequent written confession.  He claimed he was coerced into a false confession through threats of violence, which the officer/PD could still be held responsible for, if it can be proven.  I'm guessing it could not be proven, so the accused went after a 5th amendment rights violation. 

To be fair, the accused was acquitted, so maybe there is something to his story of a false coerced confession.  However, it would be extremely risky to interrogate a suspect without arresting him first, if your going to be held liable.  Who would want to ask any questions if that were the case?

Essentially, if the SCOTUS had the opposite opinion, defense lawyers everywhere could argue nothing you say, before you're arrested, should be admissible in a court of law.

I'm no Saul Goodman, but I'm not seeing the ruling as outrageous.  As you stated, we still have miranda rights.  Maybe you're wanting to amend the law so police have to read us our rights at every interaction? 

That is an excellent post - there are so many frivolous lawsuits out there - they bog down our justice system, I'm sure. You do get miranda rights read to you if you are -arrested-.

[MLD Woody]

I don't think we need any more frivolous lawsuits, but I want accountability for our government and cops

(remember when some on here claimed to be pro small government? ha...)

 

I admittedly took a quick glance through a few articles on this after seeing Vapors post, so if I'm missing something I'll be the first to admit it. 

[Vambo]

14 hours ago, nickers said:

Shes an evil drunken Slut... I expected nothing less...

Yeah what he said!

[VaporTrail]

10 hours ago, htownbrown said:

Well, when you look at the context of the case they were looking at (Tekoh vs Vega), it makes more sense.

The accused thought his miranda rights were violated, even though he was not under arrest at the time of his interrogation and subsequent written confession.  He claimed he was coerced into a false confession through threats of violence, which the officer/PD could still be held responsible for, if it can be proven.  I'm guessing it could not be proven, so the accused went after a 5th amendment rights violation. 

To be fair, the accused was acquitted, so maybe there is something to his story of a false coerced confession.  However, it would be extremely risky to interrogate a suspect without arresting him first, if your going to be held liable.  Who would want to ask any questions if that were the case?

Essentially, if the SCOTUS had the opposite opinion, defense lawyers everywhere could argue nothing you say, before you're arrested, should be admissible in a court of law.

I'm no Saul Goodman, but I'm not seeing the ruling as outrageous.  As you stated, we still have miranda rights.  Maybe you're wanting to amend the law so police have to read us our rights at every interaction? 

No, I'm not advocating for that. I'm not advocating for frivolous lawsuits. I am advocating for average joe to be able to seek renumeration if government officials mess up. The closest personal example I have for this is that a USPS mail carrier somehow hit a family member's truck that was parked in his driveway. It is clear that the postal worker screwed up, however, the individual nor the USPS could be sued for damages to the truck due to government immunity. Take that principle and apply it to a cop doing his job incorrectly. If that can clear you of criminal wrongdoing, then why shouldn't they be subject to civil suit for any damages - e.g. lost wages from being thrown in jail for 3 days?

[htownbrown]

1 hour ago, VaporTrail said:

No, I'm not advocating for that. I'm not advocating for frivolous lawsuits. I am advocating for average joe to be able to seek renumeration if government officials mess up. The closest personal example I have for this is that a USPS mail carrier somehow hit a family member's truck that was parked in his driveway. It is clear that the postal worker screwed up, however, the individual nor the USPS could be sued for damages to the truck due to government immunity. Take that principle and apply it to a cop doing his job incorrectly. If that can clear you of criminal wrongdoing, then why shouldn't they be subject to civil suit for any damages - e.g. lost wages from being thrown in jail for 3 days?

Fair enough, but that doesn't have to be addressed through miranda rights.  If you were wrongfully arrested and actually read your rights, this would do nothing to help you.  This should be addressed elsewhere.  The actual damage is not done at this point, if your going to jail either way.

[VaporTrail]

10 hours ago, htownbrown said:

Fair enough, but that doesn't have to be addressed through miranda rights.  If you were wrongfully arrested and actually read your rights, this would do nothing to help you.  This should be addressed elsewhere.  The actual damage is not done at this point, if your going to jail either way.

I am talking solely about cases where the cops screw up, don't read you your miranda rights, and where criminal charges against you would be thrown out. In those cases, you can be jailed without being convicted of a crime. You can sit in jail a few days before your court date. You can pay bail to get out of jail that you never should have been in. Those things all seem like reasonable civil court claims to me.

[Westside Steve]

6 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

I am talking solely about cases where the cops screw up, don't read you your miranda rights, and where criminal charges against you would be thrown out. In those cases, you can be jailed without being convicted of a crime. You can sit in jail a few days before your court date. You can pay bail to get out of jail that you never should have been in. Those things all seem like reasonable civil court claims to me.

I mostly don't have a beef with a lawsuit intended to make an injured party whole. I am, on the other hand, opposed to a legal system in which the courts become the lottery.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

9 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

I am talking solely about cases where the cops screw up, don't read you your miranda rights, and where criminal charges against you would be thrown out. In those cases, you can be jailed without being convicted of a crime. You can sit in jail a few days before your court date. You can pay bail to get out of jail that you never should have been in. Those things all seem like reasonable civil court claims to me.

we were watching Tucker Carlson last night - he was interviewing maybe a dozen political figures who have been barnstormed arrested by the fbi - for no good reason. But the biden regime was honked off about them. Electronics stolen, handcuffs, one's teenage daughter drug out of her bedroom by her hair...

 over nothing. Again and again.

https://freedomrockradio.co/news/tucker-carlson-provides-a-high-level-list-of-political-arrests-by-the-biden-administration/

Tucker Carlson Provides a High-Level List of Political Arrests by the Biden Administration

*******************************************************************************

    By God, if any of us had that happen, we sure the hell should be able to sue the gov for abuse of power, however that would be stated. It's like this leftwing gov is desperate to test how much power they have to stay in power by any means necessary. We desperately need the fed house cleaned, and all the corrupt "dirtbags" out. One example, the fbi gets a guy in a parking lot, refuses to show him a warrant, has him in handcuffs.

   On the flip side, so many sleazy lawyers make justice a farce, with frivolous lawsuits - it's stupid. And completely false claims by those arrested who really are criminals - it's a mess. I think the decision is just trying to fix that based on the actual law.

[Vambo]

[htownbrown]

15 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

I am talking solely about cases where the cops screw up, don't read you your miranda rights, and where criminal charges against you would be thrown out. In those cases, you can be jailed without being convicted of a crime. You can sit in jail a few days before your court date. You can pay bail to get out of jail that you never should have been in. Those things all seem like reasonable civil court claims to me.

I'm perfectly fine with compensation/reimbursement for wrongful or malicious incarceration.  I guess I don't understand why that has to be tied to miranda rights.

BUT chances are a decent percentage, whose miranda rights were violated, would have been criminals who may of had a much greater chance of walking due to a fuck up.  That's the jackpot prize.  It would be a complete mockery if they got paid on top of it.  Not getting read your rights doesn't make you innocent of anything.  It probably makes you more lucky than anything.

I understand your referring to situations that the cops are acting in a nefarious manner, but the fact is cops acting in good faith, with bad information from a witness/victim, could also be caught up in a suit.

If you look at the SCOTUS case and take the plaintiff at face value, do you find fault in not reading someone their rights before they're arrested?  Why would you be obligated to use their own words against them in a court of law or advise them to get an attorney if they're not being charged with a crime at that point?  Even if the cop is actively trying to coerce you into a confession, you're still not under arrest.  How is that a violation of your miranda rights?  I mean, in that case, your rights are being violated, but not your miranda rights.

Look, you've had a 5th amendment right for nearly 250 years.  That's not being taken from you.  I find it a little odd to sue someone for not reminding you of a right you've had for your entire life.  It's a gift in of itself that NOT getting a mandatory "courtesy" synopsis of the law gets you out of as much shit as it does.

[JAFBF]

12 hours ago, Vambo said:

 

That would be the new Chief Justice

 

[VaporTrail]

8 hours ago, htownbrown said:

I'm perfectly fine with compensation/reimbursement for wrongful or malicious incarceration.  I guess I don't understand why that has to be tied to miranda rights.

BUT chances are a decent percentage, whose miranda rights were violated, would have been criminals who may of had a much greater chance of walking due to a fuck up.  That's the jackpot prize.  It would be a complete mockery if they got paid on top of it.  Not getting read your rights doesn't make you innocent of anything.  It probably makes you more lucky than anything.

I'm of the opinion that it's a worse offense for one innocent person to be punished by the law than it is for ten guilty people to walk free. 

Quote

I understand your referring to situations that the cops are acting in a nefarious manner, but the fact is cops acting in good faith, with bad information from a witness/victim, could also be caught up in a suit.

No, my argument is not just about bad actors. It's also about negligence. If I maim someone for life, even if it was an honest mistake, they still should be able to sue me and/or my employer for recompense. If I don't perform minimum standards of care, then I deserve to be liable. The same should apply to cops. This decision has made it more difficult to seek financial recompense if you are wronged. 

Quote

If you look at the SCOTUS case and take the plaintiff at face value, do you find fault in not reading someone their rights before they're arrested?  Why would you be obligated to use their own words against them in a court of law or advise them to get an attorney if they're not being charged with a crime at that point?  Even if the cop is actively trying to coerce you into a confession, you're still not under arrest.  How is that a violation of your miranda rights?  I mean, in that case, your rights are being violated, but not your miranda rights.

I am not a lawyer. The argument presented by the minority is what I agree with. Apparently, our point of disagreement is in the interpretation of Dickerson.

[htownbrown]

1 hour ago, VaporTrail said:

I'm of the opinion that it's a worse offense for one innocent person to be punished by the law than it is for ten guilty people to walk free. 

No, my argument is not just about bad actors. It's also about negligence. If I maim someone for life, even if it was an honest mistake, they still should be able to sue me and/or my employer for recompense. If I don't perform minimum standards of care, then I deserve to be liable. The same should apply to cops. This decision has made it more difficult to seek financial recompense if you are wronged. 

I am not a lawyer. The argument presented by the minority is what I agree with. Apparently, our point of disagreement is in the interpretation of Dickerson.

I respect most of what you're saying.  I wouldn't consider maiming someone for life as very comparable to not being read your miranda rights, but I understand the need for responsibility.  

The problem lies in the nature of how miranda is implemented.  

For instance, if one of your patients told the police you groped them when they were under anesthesia, should the police show up and instantly arrest you?  Or should they be able, legally, to ask you a few questions first?  And if they do arrest you, after you spill the beans, did they violate miranda rights?  Because that last question is open to wildly different opinions.  You would be holding people liable for legal grey areas.

[Westside Steve]

Frankly in a perfect world I'm not all that comfortable with Miranda in the first place. Nor am I comfortable with the right to remain silent. If the goal is to find the perpetrator of a crime and deal with him accordingly there should be less tricks involved with the prosecution or the defense to try to get to the truth of the situation. Unfortunately the US legal system is not about getting to the truth.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

[VaporTrail]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:41 AM, htownbrown said:

I respect most of what you're saying.  I wouldn't consider maiming someone for life as very comparable to not being read your miranda rights, but I understand the need for responsibility.  

The respect is mutual. You're making me think more than expected to.

Quote

The problem lies in the nature of how miranda is implemented.  

For instance, if one of your patients told the police you groped them when they were under anesthesia, should the police show up and instantly arrest you?  Or should they be able, legally, to ask you a few questions first?  And if they do arrest you, after you spill the beans, did they violate miranda rights?  Because that last question is open to wildly different opinions.  You would be holding people liable for legal grey areas.

Seems like a fix to this would be for cops to say "anything you say may be used against you in the court of law," whenever there is any line of questioning to anyone. 

[htownbrown]

On 7/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, VaporTrail said:

The respect is mutual. You're making me think more than expected to.

Seems like a fix to this would be for cops to say "anything you say may be used against you in the court of law," whenever there is any line of questioning to anyone. 

That's more reasonable to me, it at least eliminates the grey area.