SCOTUS: cops can’t be punished for no Miranda citing

evince

evince

Truthmatters
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-police-miranda-rights/#app


Law enforcement officers who fail to provide criminal suspects with Miranda warnings prior to questioning cannot be subjected to civil lawsuits for their omissions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

Justices determined by a 6-3 vote that receiving Miranda warnings — which notify individuals taken into custody of their rights to remain silent, speak with an attorney and ask for that attorney to be present during interactions with police — is not technically a protected constitutional right.
 
evince said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-police-miranda-rights/#app


Law enforcement officers who fail to provide criminal suspects with Miranda warnings prior to questioning cannot be subjected to civil lawsuits for their omissions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

Justices determined by a 6-3 vote that receiving Miranda warnings — which notify individuals taken into custody of their rights to remain silent, speak with an attorney and ask for that attorney to be present during interactions with police — is not technically a protected constitutional right.
Click to expand...

this is what you fucking morons get for believing that SCOTUS tells you what rights you have and what the constitution means, racist.

maybe next time you'll fucking smarten up and listen to me, though I doubt you will
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this alone shows that you're an un-american cocksucker who needs to be put down like a rabid dog
Click to expand...
I'm tired of cops being demonized and killed based on the actions of one.

When someone kicks your door down, call one of your beloved thuglet or a BLM superhero. Go cuddle up with a thug and cry about it, fag.
 
Life is Golden said:
I'm tired of cops being demonized and killed based on the actions of one.

When someone kicks your door down, call one of your beloved thuglet or a BLM superhero. Go cuddle up with a thug and cry about it, fag.
Click to expand...

ROFL..........awww, look at the juvenile conservative badge blower.

I've got 1,000 rounds i'll rely on first.
 
This thread title is yet another JPP Lie....Failure to Mirandize can and does need to negative consequences on the force....to punishment.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is what you fucking morons get for believing that SCOTUS tells you what rights you have and what the constitution means, racist.

maybe next time you'll fucking smarten up and listen to me, though I doubt you will
Click to expand...

But the Supreme Court issued this opinion interpreting the Constitution.

The decision only protects police from civil lawsuit. Police still cannot use evidence revealed by the defendant if his rights were not read.
 
Flash said:
But the Supreme Court issued this opinion interpreting the Constitution.

The decision only protects police from civil lawsuit. Police still cannot use evidence revealed by the defendant if his rights were not read.
Click to expand...

cite the text of this opinion that says what you say it says
 
Life is Golden said:
I'm tired of cops being demonized and killed based on the actions of one.

When someone kicks your door down, call one of your beloved thuglet or a BLM superhero. Go cuddle up with a thug and cry about it, fag.
Click to expand...

So dumb. It has to be an act because nobody is that fucking retarded.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
cite the text of this opinion that says what you say it says
Click to expand...

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.

 We therefore refuse to extend Miranda in the way Tekoh requests. Miranda,Dickerson, and the other cases in that line provide sufficient protection for the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. “The identification of a Miranda violation and its consequences . . . ought to be determined at trial.” And except in unusual circumstances, the “exclusion of unwarned statements” should be “a complete and sufficient remedy.”
 
Last edited:
Flash said:


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.

 We therefore refuse to extend Miranda in the way Tekoh requests. Miranda,Dickerson, and the other cases in that line provide sufficient protection for the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. “The identification of a Miranda violation and its consequences . . . ought to be determined at trial.” And except in unusual circumstances, the “exclusion of unwarned statements” should be “a complete and sufficient remedy.”
Click to expand...

thank you sir, much appreciated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top