Supreme Court says prison inmates don’t have to be read rights in different investigations

[morningfog]

By Associated Press, Published: February 21

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don’t have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.

The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields’ conviction, saying Fields was not in “custody” as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.

“Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court’s decision would limit the rights of prisoners.

“Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: ‘You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,’” Ginsburg said in her dissent. “Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/supreme-court-says-prison-inmates-dont-have-to-be-read-rights-in-different-investigations/2012/02/21/gIQA3ddDRR_story.html

[Justice wanted]

1. The Roberts court is fast becoming one of the worst courts in history.

[morningfog]

4. I can't believe Kagan went along with this holding.

[Justice wanted]

5. I did start a thread asking what is going on with Kagan. I thought she was a progressive.

[morningfog]

13. I have liked her writing and the majorities and dissents of hers

that I have read. I don't know why she went this way on this one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. You'd think after being arrested, tried and convicted they'd already have a firm grasp of the idea.

[morningfog]

3. This would apply to anyone already in custody. Including those not yet tried or convicted

or necessarily even arraigned.

You'd think the cops, doing this day in and day out, would understand the procedure. You'd also think the Court would recognize their own standards.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. If you've been Mirandized for Crime A then confress to Crime B

the fact that you were never Mirandized for Crime B does/should not make the confession of Crime B inadmissable. If that were the case then criminals could confess to greater crimes while being held on lesser offenses before the police had probable cause to make an arrest for the greater offense.

Unless if can be shown an individual has no mental capacity to remember being Mirandized I don't see how one reading should fail to cover any subsequent investigation while a person remains in custody.

[stevenleser]

8. I think the point is, once you are convicted of a crime, you lose certain rights.

You lose your freedom of movement and various other freedoms and rights.

[morningfog]

11. You do, but there are many people in prison who have not be

charged, tried or convicted.

Aside from that, you still do retain certain rights, including 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections.

[stevenleser]

25. All the people in prison have been convicted. You are confusing prison with jail. nt

[morningfog]

27. That is true for the most part.

I should have been clearer, I was generalizing. While this decision did focus on a sentenced prisoner in did not address whether the same would hold for a pre-trial detainee.

It is bad enough, as it is. Someone could be serving a sentence of a couple of years and be interrogated, without being Mirandized, without being told they have a right to an attorney for a more serious crime. Or, any crime for that matter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. No doubt, by the very nature of the act of incarceration.

I'm sure privacy is out the window and most 4th and 5th Amendment protections as well.

In fact, prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishment" is about the only thing you get to count on.

[morningfog]

9. That is not how Miranda has been applied.

If you are Mirandized for Crime A, and make a voluntary confession to Crime B, I agree, it is and has been admissible.

If you are Mirandized for Crime A and are then interrogated on a wholly separate and independent Crime B, you should be and historically would be re-Mirandized for the second interrogation for the statements to be admissible.

This holding sets the stage for the reverse of your concern. Cops could arrest for a smaller crime, with just enough probable cause, and interrogate for the greater crime, of which they may have had little to no probable cause. If a person waives Miranda and speaks when they think they are being interrogated for a minor crime, they should not then be interrogated for a much more serious crime.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. But the knowledge of your 5A rights doesn't evaporate out of your head.

just sayin'

You'd think, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law..." is pretty all-encompassing and timeless. At what point did the person being interrogated forget he had 5A rights?

[morningfog]

15. That has not been and should not be the standard.

This isn't applicable to only on interrogation. This also comes up when an interrogation has ended, and the cops come back hours or days later a start again. A suspect may not even be aware that it is an interrogation at first.

There is an inherent coercive nature to police asking questions when one is held in custody, especially under arrest in prison. Miranda lessens that inherent coerciveness and protects evidence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. When people are sworn-in for giving testimony at a trial

they're still under oath even if their testimony is days apart and procured by separate sides of the bar.

There is an inherent coercive nature to police asking questions when one is held in custody, especially under arrest in prison. Miranda lessens that inherent coerciveness and protects evidence.

The evidence seems portected by Justice Kagan's ruling. Talk about inherently coercive; my dad could bring me to tears when I did something wrong just by glowering at me. I doubt that's abusive, though.

[morningfog]

17. Witnesses at trial are not at risk of self-incrimination,

unless they are the defendant.

Protecting evidence is only one part of the value of Miranda warnings. The other is to prevent coercion. This ruling will muddy the waters and likely lead to some evidence being suppressed anyway.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Even if they were the defendant a single swearing-in is still sufficient.

Confessions extracted under duress are never admissable even when Miranda rights were read.

[morningfog]

19. And confessions absent Miranda are per se coercive.

At least they used to be.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Apples v Oranges

Just as other rights are abrogated by the fact if incarceration so too Mirandizing.

If a suspect were on the streets the police could not search his home or car. Obviously incarceration alters that. being incarcerated is not the same as being free at the time of interrogation.

[morningfog]

26. This may surprise you, but prisoners are still protected by

the Constitution. Even the 5th.

If someone is in custody, and they have invoked their Miranda right to counsel, the police cannot even initiate questioning without counsel present. They can't even ask the suspect if they want to waive that right once it has been invoked.

This is all to say that what has been recognized as a standard is changing. Of course, Miranda is a relatively recent development and has been modified and limited ever since, but in my opinion, the Supreme Court got this one wrong. If you read the basis for their previous Miranda decisions, they ignore the prior logical and constitutional reasoning.

This will be subject to further modifications, clarifications and challenges, as well. It would have been better for all parties had they just been consistent with previous standards.

[dballance]

7. I'm as liberal as you can get BUT,

But seriously folks, if you are in prison already why on earth would you think you have any privacy or rights not to incriminate yourself?

Is there anyone who hasn't watched police TV shows and doesn't know about their Miranda Rights? I'm not a police officer but I can recite them. and if you're in prison it's a good chance you've been read your rights somewhere along the line.

If you think the state is being unfair then just say 'NO, TAKE ME BACK TO MY CELL.'

[morningfog]

10. It isn't so easy or black-and-white.

Have you been inside prisons? I have and have never seen a prisoner with such freedom of mobility or police grant prisoners such wishes. You could say you want to go back to your cell, and they could say, "Okay, just a few more questions."

They held this guy for four hours without giving him Miranda.

As to your first argument, there is a reason that every single custodial interrogation is required to be under Miranda even though we all know it. In large part it is to protect the DAs, the police and the evidence they want to preserve. Courts have held that interrogations without Miranda are, by their nature, coercive. This ruling changes that.

[former9thward]

20. I don't think this ruling changes much.

Sometimes police will put a police officer in jail as an 'inmate' to get a cell partner to confess crimes. Courts have long held that was proper. I don't really see much difference in this ruling.

[morningfog]

21. There are strict standards on what is admissible in those cases.

Once a prisoner is arraigned, an officer cannot go in undercover to elicit information, they can only passively listen.

Before arraignment,but after Miranda, the cops can go in undercover and ask questions. The reason is because the coercive nature of a police custodial interrogation. There is a difference in the inherent coerciveness of a cop questioning and questions from someone who you think is just another person in custody.

[frylock]

22. why not do away with miranda entirely?

shit, everyone's seen it on the teevee machine.

[stevenleser]

23. I dont agree. nt

[flexnor]

28. the greatest mystery to me in American culture

is that MOST people do not take that warning seriously

how much plainer can it get?

[morningfog]

29. It is plain, and important. Which is why everyone should get it.

Especially those already incarcerated.

[flexnor]

30. Must see youtube on miranda warning by law professor

1.6 million hits, entertaining as well as informative

&feature=related