Daily Archives: April 20, 2013

Yes, I care that the Boston marathon suspect has not been mirandized

Published by:

“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  Those are the words of the Fifth Amendment.  It says nothing about a “public safety” exception.  And what the government can do  to the most serious offenders, it can do to you or me too.  

Justice demands that the suspect be read his rights, and have access to counsel, from the beginning of custodial interrogation.   

As Emily Bazelon in Slate points out

[The] FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.” Couldn’t that be just about anything about Tsarnaev’s life, or his family, given that his alleged accomplice was his older brother (killed in a shootout with police)? There won’t be a public uproar. Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.


Let’s repeat that last part.  WHY do we have Miranda?   It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

 

You know you are in trouble when..

Published by:

a Supreme Court opinion begins with..

SOTOMAYOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C and III, in which SCALIA, GINSBURG, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. ROBERTS, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Sigh…

But in this instance, it really means Kennedy joined all of the opinion except two sections (II-C and III, in case you are wondering)  he thought un-necessary, and which did not add to the ruling.  

If you are curious, this is from Missouri v McNeely, the Court’s case this week that says the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream does not by itself create an “exigent circumstance” (or emergency) justifying a warrantless blood draw after a DUI.  But it might, if in the totality of the circumstances, the officer can demonstrate the need for the blood test.    Yet, the Court won’t specify what such circumstances might look like.  

Double sigh….  

 

 

%d bloggers like this: