 |
 |
Score one for Judge Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not a big fan of Clarence, but IMO he deserves props for this one:
Originally Posted by USA Today
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that investigators may resume questioning a suspect who has invoked his Miranda right to remain silent and have a lawyer present if at least 14 days have passed...
Scalia wrote that the court had determined that 14 days is a sufficient break for police to try again to interrogate a suspect. Of the two-week period, Scalia said, "That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody."
Justices John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas wrote separate opinions dissenting from the 14-day rule.
The upshot of Thomas' dissent is that 14 days is arbitrary, and it hasn't been shown that damage caused by not being able to interrogate a suspect is worse than the damage caused by infringing on a suspect's 5th Amendment rights.
USA Today Article.
Full opinions.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
"That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody."
What a ridiculous statement. Apparently none of these judges have ever been under a police microscope.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OldManMac 
What a ridiculous statement. Apparently none of these judges have ever been under a police microscope.
Or even watched a decent cop show.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister  Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Being black, Thomas had a unique perspective into what it's like being under a police microscope.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OldManMac
"That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody."
What a ridiculous statement. Apparently none of these judges have ever been under a police microscope.
The suspect can simply re-assert his Miranda rights if the cops come back to him after 14 days. So it's not like the cops can force the suspect to talk, they can just try again after 14 days. And if the suspect doesn't want to talk, they just have to say they want a lawyer and that's the end of it.
The problem with the current setup prior to this decision was that once a suspect requested a lawyer, the cops could never, ever go back and ask them anything.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Being black, Thomas had a unique perspective into what it's like being under a police microscope.
What you did there, I see it.
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Osedax
The suspect can simply re-assert his Miranda rights if the cops come back to him after 14 days. So it's not like the cops can force the suspect to talk, they can just try again after 14 days. And if the suspect doesn't want to talk, they just have to say they want a lawyer and that's the end of it.
The problem with the current setup prior to this decision was that once a suspect requested a lawyer, the cops could never, ever go back and ask them anything.
Okay, in perpetuity is too long...
Where did 2 weeks come from? The Judiciary just gets to invent that?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here's another good one I was just reading about :
…in his dissent from the 2005 Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal government’s authority to arrest patients who possess marijuana for their own medical use.
Originally Posted by Justice Thomas
If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Linky
|
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Okay, in perpetuity is too long...
Where did 2 weeks come from? The Judiciary just gets to invent that?
As a matter of fact, SCOTUS does "just get to invent that." It's part of the whole "interpret the Constitution" thing...
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Okay, in perpetuity is too long...
Where did 2 weeks come from? The Judiciary just gets to invent that?
Yeah, that's kinda weird. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ghporter
As a matter of fact, SCOTUS does "just get to invent that." It's part of the whole "interpret the Constitution" thing...
I believe that's "interpret the Constitution" for existing laws to determine if they are legal or not, not to come up with arbitrary time limits on laws. That's Congress's job and the SCOTUS "interprets" whether the laws Congress passes (and the limits Congress comes up with) are legal under the Constitution.
So if congress passed a law saying Miranda only lasted 2 hours, the SCOTUS would likely strike it down.
But I do understand the reason for giving an acceptable time frame - if they didn't, then until some law was passed cops could claim 2 hours was enough and whole new court battles would ensue. The 2 weeks gives a starting point that Congress can act on or simply leave as a default that the SCOTUS will accept.
Mind you i am by no means a Constitutional scholar, so yeah.
(
Last edited by Osedax; Feb 25, 2010 at 12:07 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not so much. This decision is yet another example of just how out of touch Justice Thomas really is. He dissented because he didn't think the police needed to wait 14 days before they resumed questioning a suspect who had invoked their Miranda rights.
Justice Thomas said the new rule of Maryland v. Shatzer was unnecessary. He found 14 days "arbitrary" and said there was no need for police to wait once custody had ended.
So basically, Justice Thomas is saying this is Ok ....
1. Police arrest suspect.
2. Police attempt to question suspect.
3. Suspects invokes his right to remain silent and not be questioned w/o an attorney present.
4. Police release suspect from custody.
5. Police immediately re-arrest suspect.
6. Police attempt to question suspect.
The majority of the Supreme Court say there must be at least a 14 day waiting period between #4 and #6. Even Justice Scalia who's as ridiculously conservative as they come managed to get this one right. 
OAW
(
Last edited by OAW; Feb 25, 2010 at 09:10 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sorry everyone.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Osedax
I believe that's "interpret the Constitution" for existing laws to determine if they are legal or not, not to come up with arbitrary time limits on laws. That's Congress's job and the SCOTUS "interprets" whether the laws Congress passes (and the limits Congress comes up with) are legal under the Constitution.
So if congress passed a law saying Miranda only lasted 2 hours, the SCOTUS would likely strike it down.
But I do understand the reason for giving an acceptable time frame - if they didn't, then until some law was passed cops could claim 2 hours was enough and whole new court battles would ensue. The 2 weeks gives a starting point that Congress can act on or simply leave as a default that the SCOTUS will accept.
Mind you i am by no means a Constitutional scholar, so yeah.
Actually the Court gets to set such time limits because of their duty to interpret the Constitution. It sounds like they're making stuff up, but that's what happens with all precedent law; a judge in some court says "this is how I see it, so I'm ruling this way," and it has a strong influence on later judges' actions. So too does the highest court establish specific standards, such as Miranda, purely from their written opinion, which has the effect of providing detailed, specific standards within which laws passed by Congress and signed by the president are enforced. They certainly didn't pull "14 days" out of a hat (or some bodily orifice). It's based on their lengthy experience with criminal law, on both sides of the bench and both sides of the aisle.
Originally Posted by OAW
So basically, Justice Thomas is saying this is Ok ....
1. Police arrest suspect.
2. Police attempt to question suspect.
3. Suspects invokes his right to remain silent and not be questioned w/o an attorney present.
4. Police release suspect from custody.
5. Police immediately re-arrest suspect.
6. Police attempt to question suspect.
Excellent read. I agree that without some specific minimum length of time out of custody, police departments could easily push for "good by, Hello, you're under arrest" actions, which would be completely contrary to the majority opinion's fundamental point. Not all police departments, and not all officers on even the worst forces, but if it's a possibility, it must be addressed by the court.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top