SCOTUS has been busy using that majority...

[Blkfyre]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights-ruling-b2107859.html

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion that Miranda warnings, such as the "right to remain silent", were a set of guidelines rather than a constitutional right that could result in a civil litigation against the police.

The only remedy for a Miranda violation was to block the use of incriminating statements in court, the court ruled.

The court's three liberal justices warned in a dissenting opinion that the decision would weaken Miranda rights and may encourage police to pressure people in custody.

[Romanticlover]

'The court ruled by 6-3 majority in favour of a Los Angeles sheriff's deputy who was sued after not reading a Miranda warning to a hospital worker accused of sexually assaulting a patient.'

I agree with the ruling.

I have no pity on the scumbag, let him rot in prison.

[dogwalker]

which proves to me they are politicized.  Otherwise almost every vote would be unanimous.

[Blkfyre]

'The court ruled by 6-3 majority in favour of a Los Angeles sheriff's deputy who was sued after not reading a Miranda warning to a hospital worker accused of sexually assaulting a patient.'

I agree with the ruling.

I have no pity on the scumbag, let him rot in prison.

That's great, but the thing is the law is all about precedent. And now there is one that says in certain situations cops don't have to read your Miranda rights (well, not rights anymore) to you, and if you aren't aware of them, well it's not their fault if you say/do something to incriminate yourself that you might not have had you had Miranda read. And how soon until cops keep pushing that in other situations?

[Romanticlover]

I'm not stupid and I know my 5th Amendment rights to not self-incriminate, we need to thin the herd of stupid criminals in society and this ruling will help.

[Blkfyre]

I'm not stupid and I know my 5th Amendment rights to not self-incriminate, we need to thin the herd of stupid criminals in society and this ruling will help.

Again, that's great. Not everyone does. Hell even WITH Miranda being read before this ruling people were still not keeping their mouth's shut! And, people are innocent until a judge/jury says otherwise and it was Miranda that made sure that people didn't incriminate themselves accidentally. That is exactly WHY we have Miranda!

[bats]

[Hobby]

I don't agree Maranda rights are guidelines... When a person is arrested under the color of authority their freedom is being taken from them and they have the right to know what rights they do have. The suspect has a right to know why they are being arrested, their right to silence, their right to counsel or representation etc. Maranda is founded upon the 5th and 6th amendments. Failure to advise a person upon arrest or questioning could be a violation of the individuals constitutional rights and be tossed out on this technicality. Police who fail to read Maranda to the suspect during arrest should be liable for violation of a person's 5 and 6th amendments rights. At the very least any evidence that is used against a person who was not told about their rights should be barred as evidence. Not that difficult to read a person their rights. Even illegals who don't know our laws have the same rights during an arrest as every citizen of the US.

[bats]

Failure to advise a person upon arrest or questioning could be a violation of the individuals constitutional rights and be tossed out on this technicality. Police who fail to read Maranda to the suspect during arrest should be liable for violation of a person's 5 and 6th amendments rights. At the very least any evidence that is used against a person who was not told about their rights should be barred as evidence.

I haven't read the decision, but from what I have read it seems the court explicitly said that (1) a cop's failure to advise an arrestee of his rights would NOT violate the arrestee's constitutional rights, (2) a cop will NOT be held civilly liable for such a failure to advise, and (3) statements by an arrestee who was not advised of his rights SHOULD be excluded as evidence.

[Hobby]

I haven't read the decision, but from what I have read it seems the court explicitly said that (1) a cop's failure to advise an arrestee of his rights would NOT violate the arrestee's constitutional rights, (2) a cop will NOT be held civilly liable for such a failure to advise, and (3) statements by an arrestee who was not advised of his rights SHOULD be excluded as evidence.

This is my opinion of Maranda did say the decision says this...

[Romanticlover]

'Tekoh ultimately confessed to the crime, was tried and acquitted -- even after the introduction of his confession at trial.'

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html

He sexually assaulted an immobilized patient and got away with it...truly disgusting.

[HighStepper]

which proves to me they are politicized.  Otherwise almost every vote would be unanimous.

YES!
I've often wondered about that. Learned scholars that are expert on the Constitution can't figure it out.
They should work the issue until they achieve agreement if it is not political.

[HighStepper]

If the case doesn't go forward or if the statements are not used, then HELL NO there should not be a lawsuit.

If the statements are to be use then the defense and prosecutors can make their case before a judge to see if the statements defendant made to police can be allowed in.

Certainly the police can be able to question a person pre the decision to detain or arrest. Simple questions like where are you coming from. Initially the police officer may not have a suspicion that the person has committed a crime.