Forbidden Donut

This part seems to be the most telling:

So he had been appointed a lawyer at that point and had waived having him present to talk to the police. During that interview did he bring up the fact that he wanted to stop it in order to have his lawyer present? If he is saying the cops should have known he had a lawyer and shouldn't even have asked him to waive having him there during questioning, then I disagree with his assertion.

If he initially allowed the police to talk to him then got nervous and asked for his lawyer to be present then I think he has a better point. Any evidence after that point probably shouldn't be admissible. Maybe the court is saying that if you assert your right to a lawyer, then you can continue asserting it even as the cops continue to hassle you in order to protect your rights instead of being able to assert it once and have the cops completely leave you alone unless you reinitiate contact.

In that situation the fact that we have spent so much money on the case pisses me off. His appeal is based on the fact that he confessed, after waiving the right to have an lawyer present. He basically has said I shouldnt have done that so the damning evidence shouldnt be admitted.

I see no problem with the change because its not like cops beat confessions out of people. I cant tell you how many times I have heard about/had happen to me that a case is lost on some bullshit technicality that prevents concrete evidence from being admitted into court.

Good change imo.

No where does this alter or change the defendant's right to plead the 5th, or demand that his/her lawyer be present before the questioning. Just gives the cops a chance to initiate questioning of a defendant again later.

Not sure how this can be disagreed with, as the defendant has the same outs that are always available when being questioned.

He was subjected to a 6.5 hour "interview" in which he made "increasingly incriminating statements".

Cops might not physically beat confessions out of people, but they are trained in the Reid Technique, which I'd hardly call a fair interview aimed at seeking out the truth...

It's more of a 6 hour emotional and mental gauntlet in which they are lying to you most of the time in an attempt to fluster you into "making a mistake" and confessing your crime, or a crime, or the crime. It wouldn't be a shocker if he was "guaranteed" to be have a lenient court if he confessed, or if he apologized to the wife. He's stupid for falling for this stuff, but I'm kind of in the camp which police interrogation tactics are hardly good police work...

Now on the topic at hand:
So long as I'm still legally entitled to counsel and silence I can't say I care too much about this guy's idiocy in the interrogation. Justice Scalia is and always has been a fucking idiot. Stevens is cool. This decision is bad as it gives police, who I believe have entirely too much power already... more power.


That's bullshit.


That's not the concern of the Supreme Court. I'm sure glad we have a nice conservative bench which doesn't try to legislate from the position...

Scalia's argument seems to boil down to "we should weaken the rights of good citizens if it means we catch the bad guys." Which might be one of the more disturbing things I've heard come out of the mouth of a Supreme Court Justice...

It's not illegally obtained evidence if the cop says "this is off the record" when you ask for a lawyer, and you stupidly believe him. This gives cops license to ignore your request for a lawyer and ask questions anyway, to which you are of course not obliged to respond. But try keeping that up for 7 hours and get back to me.

If you're not an english speaker there is no requirement to Mirandize them in their native language.

/This idiot fell for every step of the Reid Technique... and there was DNA, so up the creek for him.
//This is more about the erosion of our protections against harassment from authority.

What gives cops license to do that exactly? Keep in mind, all my education is in Canadian law, so my understanding of how things work in the US is hazy by comparison.



What you're saying seems to directly contradict that.

I see why you're view of policing might be slightly different than mine now /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Here in the states, you are immune from questioning when either of those rights are invoked. This is the first challenge to that that I'm aware of. It seems that now, you can revoke those rights after the fact, much to the glee of the investigating officers. Which I believe is exactly the outcome that is hoped for when you inform the guy who has no clue about how the justice system works that he's under arrest for MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE when he asks for a lawyer. And then refusing to talk to him while you stand outside the room talking out of his earshot about god knows what.

This provides a person with the (completely detrimental) ability to renege on the invocation of either the right to silence or the right to counsel. Consequently this adds an additional interrogation strategy to the arsenal of investigators. They can now try and get a person to revoke their rights while the detainee waits for his counsel.

This is bullshit and serves absolutely zero legal purpose. There just aren't that many bad people who get away with bad things to warrant this kind of nonsense. No matter what your metric for "enough bad people on the loose" might be.

More reading from that link up there reveals the following:

The officers shouldn't have even asked if they could keep asking, no matter how much the suspect begged.

Moar Reading:
I wonder why this went to the SCotUS... seems like all the circumstances surrounding this have been encountered and decided on before:

You seem to be arguing this particular case more then the rule itself.

Even with your explanations, I'm not sure that that I agree that this serves no legal purpose. Detrimental ability or not, its still the choice of the defendant. You seem to be arguing that the ability to make any choice that may be detrimental to their position be stripped from the defendant.

If that ability is stripped of the defendant, then he/she loses the ability to confess to a crime he/she did actually commit if he/she has already asked for a lawyer. In this case, the officers would be unable to question the subject about further whereabouts of evidence, or other related persons.

That example is an obviously rare worst circumstance, but my main argument here is still choice. The defendant should have the choice to revoke or invoke his rights at any time.

Now, in this particular case:

How can you say his decision to waive his rights was not knowing, when he knew what he was accused of and signed many waivers and had his miranda rights re-read to him before he made his decision? Now, I'm not sure what context "intelligent" has in that line, but it seems like a really poor choice of a word. To somone who hasn't studied American law, "intelligent" is incredibly ambiguous in that line.

Oh damn. That sure sucks a big one.

Go out and do some damned detective work and stop relying on testimony from people you don't trust unless they tell you what you want to hear.
/snark [off]

With regards to the intelligence issue, it's explicitly stated in the ruling whence that verbage arises that it refers to the interrogating party. If the suspect's waiver of his rights makes as little sense as this one, they are supposed to drop it. (my interpretation of the legalese... not 100% on what this *really* means in a practical sense, just inferring)

The only reason this is such a wacky case is that the man literally begged for the chance to incriminate himself. I wouldn't really argue against this being a case in which he probably should have been allowed to speak up (though it's still unclear as to which story he relayed was most accurate since he conveyed a total of 7). The authorship of the letter written to the wife is in question. He claims to have been told that charges could be lowered to manslaughter if he cooperated, which is not an uncommon or illegal interrogation strategy. If that's what prompted his reversal is that okay, considering he was charged and found guilty of Murder 1 and sentenced to death?

In a broader sense, the idea that it's wrong to strip a person of the right to incriminate themselves confuses me. The whole reason Miranda rights were instantiated was to provide a person with protections against self incrimination by informing them of their rights. Why force them to say those rights out loud before they count? So since I'm of the belief that we shouldn't have to tell cops what our rights are in order to actually be granted those rights, this is a step in the WRONG direction. Not a big one or anything, but I'm sensitive to this sort of thing.

I fail to see how on earth you can think that. Interrogation techniques are a fine art and take many years to perfect along with simply having a knack for it.



This argument seems to imply that the majority of people will confess to anything as long as they are asked enough questions. If you have not done anything wrong I fail to see how you could slip up and confess to something you havent done.



The only additional power this gives police is the ability to go and speak to a defendant after they have an attorney.

I would be interested to know why you think that cops badger people into waiving their right to counsel.



Incorrect.



You have no idea how many people go free as is that are guilty as hell.



I am willing to beat you have no experience in Detective work you you would realize how ignorant your sarcasm makes you appear. If you have a suspect, they are a suspect for a reason. It is that investigators job to determine what happened, and the best place to start would obviously be a suspect.



In no way shape or form does this ruling revoke someones miranda rights. All this ruling does is allow investigators to approach a suspect who has a lawyer and ask them if they want to talk with/without their lawyer present. Your argument seems to go backwards here. The reason the investigator must say the Miranda rights are so the suspect understands them. It has been well documented that since miranda confessions obtained without miranda (when the miranda circumstances apply) will not be admitted into court. So even if the rights are not read they will still have the rights. So its documented you have those rights if you are told them or not... so I agree with you that someone should not have to be told their rights... in other words I disagree with Miranda.

The talent that is required to perform successful interrogations is irrelevant. It might be skillful, but that doesn't mean it is good.



His argument doesn't imply that at all. It does, however, imply that interrogation techniques that are designed and implemented to confuse, overwhelm, and frighten the person being questioned could result in false confessions. That is quite a dramatic difference to your very incorrect interpretation of what he alluded to.



I, too, would like to see specific evidence of this, but I also am not at all surprised if it turns out to be true.



For what law enforcement agency do you work, and what is the title of your occupation where you have such experience?

Yeah Andrew, that last post seems just plain ignorant. Getting bitchy and pushy when we were discussing something reasonably isn't called for.

Go out and do some detective work? Are you even reading what you type? Or what I type for that matter? I said if he wants to drop his RTC and confess, that in YOUR world, he wouldn't be able to. This would in turn take all ability away to question the suspect about anyone who might have had further involvement with the crime, or where hard evidence may be obtained. Do some "real detective work" when the person right in front of you wants to talk to you and tell you what you need to know to prevent further crime, but CAN'T tell you due to some bureaucratic bull-shit?

Do you realize that this could easily allow accomplices in the crime to go free, and quite possibly put other people at risk?

And what's the worst case scenario with allowing them to initiate contact with a suspect? That the suspect is an idiot and incriminates himself? Isn't this the case with miranda in the first place? So what's changed?

Which situation is worse? I know my vote.



I don't see that inference as being correct at all. If it was, this would mean that any time a suspect revokes his miranda rights after already invoking them, it would have to be discarded. Think about it. You are under arrest for something. You invoke, then revoke your RTC. The possible consequences would always be the same as in this case, with only the punishment being different. It would never make any more sense then it did in this case, regardless of crime.

So what you are saying, Andrew, is that it would be a better world if rights were not read at the scene, and it was simply common practice to apply those rights by default every time to an individual.

Ie: They auto invoke right to silence and attorney EVERY time they become a suspect, arrested, questioned, etc.

I am a Det/Sgt in Narcotics, part of a multi-jurisdictional drug task force, and also part of a Federal Drug Task Force. I have made hundreds of drug arrests which have lead to convictions in both State and Federal court. The investigations I have lead and been apart of have put people in prison for up to life and as a direct result of those cases tons, yes tons of narcotics and millions of dollars have been seized.


I know what I am talking about.

While I certainly think your experience backs up what you say, I don't know if arresting people under the guise of the war on drugs is going to win you any praise from Andrew /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Detective work in narc != detective work in homicide But your experience is still relevant. OK.

My point had more to do with the idea that information from criminals is wonderful unless they aren't confessing or telling you who the boss is, in which case they are lying. No way that sort of investigational attitude could lead to false convictions?

I've played the game where I explain how the bad apple rule doesn't apply in policing, and shown that there is a widespread pattern of abuse in the system. I simply don't agree with anything that tips the scales further in that direction. Almost ever.

If this doesn't change anything, why make a ruling in the Supreme Court?

I just do not see how you think allowing an investigator possible access (and thats all it is possible) to a suspect would lead to false convictions. The only time this will help/affect anything is when a suspect decides that they do want to confess/give pertinent information. This just allows investigators the ability to go speak to the suspect again, and yes they would have to mirandize them, again. Even at that point the suspect still has every right in the world to say go away, and if that were to happen any investigator with sense would not bother wasting their time coming back.

And if makes you feel better the Supreme Court also recently took away a very valuable investigative tool from law enforcement. They turn around and give us this.... which is next to nothing.

What tool?

They drastically modified the search incident to arrest, which if it is an intelligent cop there are still ways to do the same thing as before. But in all honesty not every cop will think of the ways and not every cop will have the time to do the added work.

Are you talking about the decision that was arrived at when a guys car was searched without a warrant at a traffic stop and the heroin that was found was deemed to be inadmissible?

I believe in that one they found it in a cigarette package, which could neither contain a weapon, nor destructible evidence pertaining to the arrest. But I could be thinking of something way off base.

What did they modify exactly? Here a search incident to arrest is practically anything around the suspect, including his trunk in many cases.

Here (as I understand it), the rule only applies when there is reason to be concerned about the destruction of evidence pertaining to the arrest or if there is reason to believe they possess a weapon, in which case you are only permitted to seize the weapon.

The court upheld that to be the case since there is no evidence relevant to the traffic violation in a crumpled cigarette pack, and there's no way a gun is fitting in there either.

Two things though:
1) this is starting to get into legal territory I have only cursory knowledge of
2) this might not even be what MR was referring to

/dangling prepositions are adorable

That is the case I was talking about. Like I said, there are numerous ways that would still let you search the entire vehicle but it would be near impossible for a patrol officer to have the time or knowledge to do so (that is of course if the person says no to a consent search).

I'm of the firm belief that there should be very, very few ways in which police should be permitted to search my car without my permission.

1. They have a warrant
2. I have a gun/drugs/other illegal things in view

I'm honestly curious, under what circumstances do you believe a search should be permitted? Under which do you not?

A hypothetical:
You pull me over for speeding. Let's say 10 mph over. I wasn't swerving. I haven't run any lights or signs. I've signaled. Just speeding. What would have to happen to justify a search?

Well, here in Canada, an arrest would have to happen to constitute a search. There's some stuff under the liquor license act allowing warantless searches as well, but I don't recall it off the top of my head. If that doesn't apply, you need to have RPG that a crime is being/has been committed.

In Canada people don't get searched personally (or their vehicles) on traffic stops. In Canada every warantless search is presumed to be unreasonable (which violates section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ie. Canadian bill of rights).

However; in Canada it is possible to have a situation of an unlawful search, which violates someone's rights, yet to have the evidence not be disallowed in court. It is my understanding that such a possibility doesn't exist in the states.

Yes, an essentially illegal search can produce evidence that is not excluded in court.

If I saw clues that made me think you had something illegal in your vehicle. But when I was on the road I asked everyone I stopped if I could search their vehicle. But I almost always worked when we had a dog on duty so that was the easiest thing to use.

Really? That would never fly here. Up here using a dog would also constitute an illegal search.

maybe i don't understand the circumstances surrounding why you did this, but it sounds really crazy to me. You searched every single car you pulled over?

what he is saying is that with every car he stopped he probably said something along the lines of "do you mind if i search inside your vehicle real quick, just to make sure you don't have anything you shouldn't have"

Which is still insane.

If any sane person should be expected to say "no" then any reasonable cop should know better than to ask.

Mind if IA just hangs around in your patrol car with you for a month. Just to make sure you don't do anything you're not supposed to?

haha, explain insane.

I could care less if IA (which for us is a fancy word for supervisors) is in my car with me. I have nothing to hide.

Last I checked we were innocent until found guilty. Why the fuck are you even asking me to search my car? Because you want to catch me in a trusting mood so you can search my car legally for whatever you can possibly find.

Is there another reason I'm unaware of? Or am I right and it's a hard-on for authority?

Who does that kind of police activity serve or protect?

haha I still don't see "insane".

I don't personally agree with asking everyone but thats a personal preference.

The reasonings for asking are different for everyone. You can think its a hard on all you want but its part of this job.

So it's not just a fishing expedition?

Perhaps it's time to step back...

What do you believe your job to be?

I asked everyone, didnt search everyone. As you also pointed out, its a legal search and if I dont think there are drugs or evidence of some other crime in the vehicle I am not going to waste my time searching it.

And if you think that catching drug dealers isnt a method of protecting I can begin citing the prevalence of drug use among offenders of b&e's, rapes, murders and the like.

It is similar to fishing but it is a focused attempt. Most people that prattle on about that kind of enforcement are also the ones that bitch that law enforcement doesnt do any proactive work (when there isnt much more proactive than out trying to catch people)....not saying your one of those people.

Correlation != Causation

Go figure, people who commit crimes have little respect for laws regarding what they put into their body. It is also noteworthy that criminals who have victims get caught because they have victims, and are likely to have drugs as well for the reasons cited above.

This let's me segue into a comparison.
If prevalence of drug use among violent offenders is indicative of a systemic problem which must be addressed, what of prevalence of violent abuse of power among peace officers? At what point does it indicate a problem which must be addressed?

back on topic: If you have no intention of searching the vehicle, what is the rationale for asking for permission? If you have a reason to search, you have a reason to search, and no reason to need to ask.

Also I've never heard the complaint that police aren't proactive enough from anybody but police, but I'll take your word for it.

I like this thread, a lot.

I ask everyone for the reaction. Which is part of what I would base my decision on if I actually wanted to search the car. And yes like it or not simply because I want to search a car doesnt mean I can if I cannot articulate the probable cause.

You mention officers having violent abuses of power, good question because I have no idea how often it happens but relative to the number of officers not having violent abuses in power I would say not often at all. I would also say that the "violent abuses" of power would have to be taken in context, ie some care if a rapists gets punched in the mouth one time too many after fighting the police... i dont.

I think almost everything a police officer does is an abuse of power; that includes pretty much your entire job description.

Keep going, this is golden entertainment.

You sound like a really good cop, and I'm glad to have you as part of the community here at forbidden donut.

I sure as hell do.

And on the maybe 1 in 100 chance that said rapist can prove physical abuse took place, you can kiss that rapist's sentence good bye.

Would you care then? Would you be able to live with knowing that the victim and the family get no recompense because you couldn't keep your hard-on for the asshole to yourself?

Sorry, but I'd stop the guy doing the punching, even if he was a friend. Not because I don't think the asshole deserves it, but because I think he deserves worse.

Also gov, stop sniping from the sidelines. The only thing you've successfully conveyed thus far is a pretentious holier then thou attitude. Actually participate.

I tend to tune out people who use extreme examples like rape to justify violent behavior towards suspects. Especially when most of the people who are arrested are non-violent offenders.

Especially when the person making the hyperbolic point is spending most of his time locking up said non-violent offenders.

The reason I didn't jump into the conversation from the beginning was that I hadn't fully formulated my opinion on the court decision. I have since figured it out, but the conversation has obviously derailed a bit since then.

In regard to the original topic: I support the court's decision. I may hate a lot about the way police conduct their business, but I don't think sacrificing our loyalty to the constitution whenever we think it is necessary to protect people is a good practice in any situation. The overreaching power of the police force and the excessive force and/or the abuse of suspects' rights is a problem that should be addressed head-on.

In regard to the new topic: It is disappointing (but not surprising) that any US citizen thinks what Major Rufus is saying is OK in the slightest bit. I think there is nearly no situation where a cop should be allowed to search a car without a warrant. In fact, I think the only time that should ever be even remotely an option is when someone's life is immediately in danger (someone screaming in the trunk, for example). I think fishing for evidence of random crime is completely unethical and beyond the intentions of an active police force. I also think Major's entire occupation is an affront to the ideals of this nation, and it saddens me to an unimaginable degree that anyone thinks he should be doing what he's doing.

Wow guys, Major Rufus is following his department's policies on what he is and is not allowed to do. You can disagree with the fundamental policies and courts that have upheld them but it is unfair to make snide remarks that he is abusing people (yes in your world he is abusing the system but in the world we live in now he is not). Even if he personally thinks its okay to hit a rapist a bit extra, he will be accountable for his actions if he actually does such a thing himself.

Gov- Is there any point at which you would make an exception to your warrant rule for searching cars?
If statistics showed that 1 out of every 2 cars had a person tied up in the trunk you would sit there and do nothing? How would you get enough warrants at specific places and times and for things to search for when there is such an epidemic? If a cop hears the person in the trunk screaming you think it is okay to let the police save that person's life. Why can't you look through the window and see a certain drug that kills 1 out of every 2 people that take it...why can't you use a plain sight search to reach into the car and prevent a 50% chance at death? A 10% chance at death? You friggin see the drug in plain sight so you are doing a huge amount of good in confiscating it as opposed to the minimal intrusion into the person's privacy. Courts have consistently looked at such sticky situations and outlined when exceptions are okay while keeping the thrust of our general liberties. Not being able to protect society would be disastrous and I don't think you are an anarchist.

This isn't what Rufus is saying he's doing. That is actually what I, of all people, said would be acceptable.

Rufus is asking a catch 22.

"May I search your vehicle?"
"Sure, but I don't know what you'll find."
-he can search because he has permission to search

"May I search your vehicle?"
"No sir. Not without a warrant."
"That's awfully suspicious."
- he can search if his discretion deems that 'probable cause'

What he's doing is LEGAL, sure. But it's shitty, and I'm pretty sure he knows it.

I am far more disappointed in society for accepting the policies Major Rufus follows as necessary or good than I am at Major Rufus for following them. I'm even more disappointed in society for accepting Major Rufus' occupation as necessary or good than I am at Major Rufus for having said occupation. My post was far less directed at him as it was society in general.

I already gave you an exception to the warrant rule -- if someone else is in immediate danger and entering the car without a warrant was the only way to protect them, then it is reasonable to do so. The same rule applies to warrants involving anyone's property: if a cop sees someone attacking someone else on private land, they are allowed to enter the property to stop it. However, unless the unrealistic scenario you described involves everyone taking that drug on the highway and killing other people due to the subsequent car crash, then no, I don't think the cop as any right to enter the car just because the person has a deadly drug inside. That's more of an issue with drug-control than it is with warrantless searches, though.

you couldn't be any farther from the truth or really know what you are talking about, at least not in my state.

Would you like to postulate as to the purpose of asking to search every car you pull over?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like a fishing trip for probable cause, but I suppose I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

He also said he used a dog, which is REALLY stretching that pesky protection from unreasonable search and seizure we have* here

*offer not valid after 9/11/01. void where prohibited.

The point that i was trying to make about your last post is if someone says no here, thats really what it means unless we get a warrant. We don't have dogs readily available to be able to go through every car that says no. And them saying no doesn't give us PC to search it all of a sudden.

I've already stated that i don't agree with asking every car. Not my style.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. Poor wording.

Let me repost the comment that really set me off.

"I ask everyone for the reaction. Which is part of what I would base my decision on if I actually wanted to search the car. And yes like it or not simply because I want to search a car doesnt mean I can if I cannot articulate the probable cause."

We can argue all day about whether this is a legitimately sanctioned method of policework all day. I won't because I recognize that it is.

But seriously, you can read police reports that cite some really silly shit for probably cause. I don't buy for a second that an overzealous cop wouldn't be able to cite some sweat beading on my brow and some training in recognizing symptoms of drug influence (I forget the name of it) to justify a search. So long as he had the training that is.

And if the guy has a dog? Yeah... having that dog within 50 feet of me violates my constitutional protections against illegal search.