Miranda Rights warning to be amended.

[Deluge Of Sound]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Originally Posted by Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they have to explicitly warn criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.

The arguments in front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have a lawyer present while being interrogated by police.

Powell, a convicted felon, was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.

Joseph W. Jacquot, Florida deputy attorney general, argued that the warning given Powell "expresses all the rights required under Miranda."

Justice Stephen Breyer clearly disagreed.

"Aren't you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?" Breyer said. "I mean, it isn't as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"

Different courts have came down on different side on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

"We've got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn't that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can't reasonably convey, if there's this many courts holding that it doesn't?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Powell's lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said that the warning Powell was given from Tampa, Fla., police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."

Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer's argument "angels dancing on the head of a pin."

"You are saying, 'Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'" Scalia said. "I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?"

Miranda rights have been endlessly litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the rights to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. But those requirements likely will continue to be parsed by lawyers and judges.

For example, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that most police start off Miranda rights by saying "You have the right to remain silent." But, Alito said, what happens if someone begins talking to the police and then decides that they want to be silent?

"Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence," Alito said.

"We could write that down. It could be the next case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to laughter.

The case is Florida v. Powell, 08-1175.

Your thoughts?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it is a change for the better, and not meaningless semantics.

[electracoyote]

"You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

I'm reading this and I immediately get the clear impression that I don't have to talk to law enforcement without my lawyer being present. It's pretty clear to me already. It says "at any time during the interview." How much more language is needed to convey that simple message?

[bongomania]

Ehhh.... I agree that to avoid litigation it should be worded as clearly and explicitly as possible; but I also think the more complicated it gets, the more difficulty cops will have in reciting it, and the more difficulty thugs will have in understanding it.

I would emphasize clarifying the language without adding to the length or complication of the recitation.

[Armueller2001]

I think it's a good thing... too many people end up getting charged for something because they opened their mouth when they shouldn't have.

The golden rule of dealing with police - DON'T TALK! LAWYER UP!

[Hoover]

I wrote a melody to the Miranda Rights and we used to perform it in my punk band back around 1982...at that time the passage was

"You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed free of charge before any questioning, if you wish one."

...and while that is clearly different in exact syntactic content from

"You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

...who would argue that there is any semantic difference between those two passages?

A Supreme Court justice, apparently.


Sorry, imho, either of those readings makes it so clear that a lawyer could be present during questioning that the suspect should also be arrested for criminal stupidity.

[mike_v_s]

I'm not sure it really needs to be rewritten, but if they can find a more concise way to get the point accross to the more obtuse members of our society, then I'm not going to complain.

Mike

[Steve]

It can't hurt but geeze, If you exercise your right to have an attorney PRIOR to questioning...there won't BE any questioning to argue over.

If you exercise your right PRIOR to questioning and you choose to ignore your attorney when he tells you to keep your @#$ mouth shut...I doubt very seriously he's going to leave you alone with the cops.

You tell a guy he doesn't have to talk, you tell a guy you'll give him a lawyer, you tell a guy if he does talk anything he says can and will be used against him...a guy wants to talk after all that needs to be in jail just for being that stupid.

What's next, tell the guy before and after every question that he can stop talking at any time? Interrupt the question to remind him in case he's so stupid he can't remember his rights by the time the question is over?

"Your honor I know my client waived his rights but, he has short term memory loss from a lifetime of being a pothead. Under stress, he forgot"....


What happens to all the duchebags that got convicted under the old standard? Are they going to be getting out?



IMHO

[NickInMesa]

I usually tell them "It's ok, I know my rights, you don't need to read them" and then I take cover and open fire.

[need4mospd]

Originally Posted by Armueller2001

The golden rule of dealing with police - DON'T TALK! LAWYER UP!

Remember,

"Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Nothing you say will be used FOR you. I'm not some kind of anti-police nut, I've got a few friends in the force and I'm well aware that a majority of them are good or great cops. But there is absolutely no reason you should talk to the police unless your lawyer is present, ESPECIALLY if you're being arrested or have a suspicion an arrest is going to be made(even if it's not you). It's not an anti-police policy, it's a pro 5th amendment one. Many innocent people have been sent to prison because they didn't say, "I have nothing to say unless my lawyer is present."

[UnsungZeros]

^ +1.

[Jimmy Bones]

Heh.

I was a kid last time I was arrested. Had I paid any attention, I would have noticed that in the argument between Alachua Sheriff's Office, Gainesville PD, and University PD over jurisdiction, I never got my Miranda's and probably could have gotten off without any trouble, and maybe even gotten some cash for unlawful arrest.

Anywho, the miranda rights are a good thing, but I think that they should be recited after an arrest has been made, and before the initial investigative interview. There are too many real criminals who get off because of procedure flubs during the arrest.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT


Your thoughts?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it is a change for the better, and not meaningless semantics.

i guess clarifying the language of miranda would be ok,but i'd hate to see legions of felons released because they confessed and regretted it later.....america already leads the world in legal protections for it's accused

[OriginalCrash]

"And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"

"You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

Justice Breyer now (if I didn't already before) has me believing we need to give our judges some sort of basic English language comprehension test before appointing them...? It clearly states you have the right to an attorney, and yes, it clearly states that this right applies during the interrogation. The Miranda rights are a good thing. We do believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing in this country, and so it's important to protect people's rights during that process. That said, you'd have a hard time convincing me that more innocent people go to prison due to legal issues than the other way around... So if judges are gonna get involved, I'd personally think we need to first deal with the problems that let guilty people go free before we worry about this. After all, we already have the Miranda rights, which already protect people rights during the arrest process... quite well IMO.

[Zebco]

Originally Posted by Jim Campbell

america already leads the world in legal protections for it's accused

America leads the world in jailing it's own citizens. If your statement is also true then America may lead the world in criminals.

[Zebco]

Originally Posted by OriginalCrash

We do believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing in this country, and so it's important to protect people's rights during that process.

We believe it but we don't seem to practice it much. From having to pay a traffic ticket before you can contest it to staying in jail while waiting for a trial. We could change our belief to fit our practice but I don't see that happening

[RickenBoogie]

I just find it difficult to comprehend that ANYBODY in these United States isn't already intimately aware of their Miranda rights. I mean, every cop show since Adam-12 has used them in the script of the show, and there've been LOTS of cop shows since. Being "informed" of your rights at the time of an arrest SHOULD be just re-affirmation, not the 1st time a person has become aware they exist.

[becker4567]

Why do you need to be read your Miranda Rights? Someone once said "ignorance is no excuse for the law". I'm sorry if some bugger eating redneck dosen't know he is entitled to a lawyer when he gets arrested, but knowing at least a little about your legal rights is like knowing traffic laws, it is part of being an adult and a citizen in this country. The legal system here has enough problems without being concerned that some felon really didn't know that he shouldn't confess his crime without a lawyer present, or that anything he says might come back and bite him. I know that sounds harsh, but it gets really old hearing that a criminal is getting let off scott free because he was basically stupid.

[Zebco]

Originally Posted by RickenBoogie

I just find it difficult to comprehend that ANYBODY in these United States isn't already intimately aware of their Miranda rights. I mean, every cop show since Adam-12 has used them in the script of the show, and there've been LOTS of cop shows since. Being "informed" of your rights at the time of an arrest SHOULD be just re-affirmation, not the 1st time a person has become aware they exist.

Decent point, the case in question is against someone who already had a felony conviction. You'd assume they would have heard about Miranda before.

I do like the idea of making things more clear though. The cops know the routine already.

[Zebco]

Originally Posted by becker4567

Why do you need to be read your Miranda Rights? Someone once said "ignorance is no excuse for the law".

Douglas Adams used it or similar in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Edit: I just re read what you wrote, very funny

[jmattbassplaya]

I can ad lib the whole thing just from all the cop shows and movies I`ve seen. I think everyone knows they have the right to a lawyer by now in this day and age.