Where in the Constitution does it say Miranda warnings are required?

[Little-Acorn]

The so-called "Miranda rights" themselves, are spelled out in the Constitution, of course. Anyone accused in a criminal trial or proceeding, has the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be provided for him by the state; and all the rest. These are very valuable rights, and it's an excellent idea for the country to stick to them. And, being part of the Constitution, they are the Law of the Land... which is as it should be.

But where in the Constitution does it say that, when the cops arrest somebody, they must transform into schoolteachers and explain those rights to the suspect?

Being a citizen, carries certain responsibilities. and they are the citizen's responsibilities, not the cops'. Knowing what the basic laws are, is one of those responsibilities. God help you if you try to memorize the entire Federal Register every year, with its 60,000-plus pages of new laws. But it's up to you to know at least the basic stuff... such as what the Constitution protects.

If you walk into a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, grab a bunch of cash, and run out... and a cop grabs you and arrests you... is he required to tell you that sticking a gun in the teller's face and grabbing the cash, is illegal? Is he required to warn you that if you slug the cop afterward, you will be in even more trouble? No. Those things are certainly true, but he is not required to tell you so. And if you slug him without being told it's illegal, and he slams you down onto the ground and cuffs you without explaining why, your case does NOT get thrown out of court for the lack of "Slug-a-cop" warnings.

So why does evidence get thrown out for the lack of "Right to remain silent" warnings?

If you ask for a lawyer and he refuses to get you one, and goes on questioning you, then that evidence most certainly should be thrown out, and if the cops lose the case, that's just too damned bad. That's as it should be.

But if he never mentions your right to have a lawyer, and asks you questions and you answer them, and then you ask for a lawyer and he stops questioning you and DOES get you a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say that the evidence from those first questions must be thrown out?

The so-called "Miranda warnings" are a complete fabrication, and have no place in American jurispridence or police work. I know, the Supreme Court said they were mandatory, in the case by the same name. But the Supreme Court once said "separate but equal" segregated facilities for black people, were just fine, too. They were wrong both times.

You are responsible for knowing the basic law, and your fundamental rights. The cops are not responsible for becoming your schoolteacher - nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that they are, despite what the Supreme Court once wishfully thought.

Your right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and all the rest, are one of the cornerstones of American freedon, protected by the Constitution, and must NEVER be compromised or infringed.

Your right to have cops explain that to you, is not, nor should it be.

[SpidermanTUba]

The so-called "Miranda rights" themselves, are spelled out in the Constitution, of course. Anyone accused in a criminal trial or proceeding, has the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be provided for him by the state; and all the rest. These are very valuable rights, and it's an excellent idea for the country to stick to them. And, being part of the Constitution, they are the Law of the Land... which is as it should be.

But where in the Constitution does it say that, when the cops arrest somebody, they must transform into schoolteachers and explain those rights to the suspect?

Being a citizen, carries certain responsibilities. and they are the citizen's responsibilities, not the cops'. Knowing what the basic laws are, is one of those responsibilities. God help you if you try to memorize the entire Federal Register every year, with its 60,000-plus pages of new laws. But it's up to you to know at least the basic stuff... such as what the Constitution protects.

If you walk into a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, grab a bunch of cash, and run out... and a cop grabs you and arrests you... is he required to tell you that sticking a gun in the teller's face and grabbing the cash, is illegal? Is he required to warn you that if you slug the cop afterward, you will be in even more trouble? No. Those things are certainly true, but he is not required to tell you so. And if you slug him without being told it's illegal, and he slams you down onto the ground and cuffs you without explaining why, your case does NOT get thrown out of court for the lack of "Slug-a-cop" warnings.

So why does evidence get thrown out for the lack of "Right to remain silent" warnings?

If you ask for a lawyer and he refuses to get you one, and goes on questioning you, then that evidence most certainly should be thrown out, and if the cops lose the case, that's just too damned bad. That's as it should be.

But if he never mentions your right to have a lawyer, and asks you questions and you answer them, and then you ask for a lawyer and he stops questioning you and DOES get you a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say that the evidence from those first questions must be thrown out?

The so-called "Miranda warnings" are a complete fabrication, and have no place in American jurispridence or police work. I know, the Supreme Court said they were mandatory, in the case by the same name. But the Supreme Court once said "separate but equal" segregated facilities for black people, were just fine, too. They were wrong both times.

You are responsible for knowing the basic law, and your fundamental rights. The cops are not responsible for becoming your schoolteacher - nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that they are, despite what the Supreme Court once wishfully thought.

Your right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and all the rest, are one of the cornerstones of American freedon, protected by the Constitution, and must NEVER be compromised or infringed.

Your right to have cops explain that to you, is not, nor should it be.

Have you read the Supreme Court opinion on this issue? You should start there if you really want answers. If you don't really want answers and just wanna bitch - maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force? It doesn't! So this means Air Force members don't have to salute the President.

[Mr. P]

I don't have a problem with Miranda. It does one very important thing:

It closes legal loop holes that would result in no conviction.

I don't see this as teaching rights at all. I see it as strengthening a legal case.

[Little-Acorn]

I don't have a problem with Miranda. It does one very important thing:

It closes legal loop holes that would result in no conviction.

I don't see this as teaching rights at all. I see it as strengthening a legal case.

???????????????

It does exactly the opposite.

It OPENS legal loopholes that result in no conviction, even in the face of an open and voluntary confession, admission where the body is buried, etc.

[CSM]

Have you read the Supreme Court opinion on this issue? You should start there if you really want answers. If you don't really want answers and just wanna bitch - maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force? It doesn't! So this means Air Force members don't have to salute the President.

heh...I would love to see some Air Force officer refuse to salute the President based on Constitutional grounds! The National Security Act of 1947 might make justification for such behavior a little difficult to explain, however.

[Mr. P]

???????????????

It does exactly the opposite.

It OPENS legal loopholes that result in no conviction, even in the face of an open and voluntary confession, admission where the body is buried, etc.

I disagree. Admission to a location of a body does not a murder make.
Remember, the "burden" of proof is on the state.

EDIT: add to the buren that the state can't trample constitutional rights in the attemp to convict..so Miranda, in a way prevents, a Police state.

[HogTrash]

Jury Nullification, although little known and rarely invoked, has always been a favorite of mine.

jury nullification
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...+nullification

[Mr. P]

Jury Nullification, although little known and rarely invoked, has always been a favorite of mine.

Mine too!!

[avatar4321]

The Constitution doesn't say Miranda warnings are required.

However, as long as the Case law does I am going to continue use them to free my clients if the opportunity arises since I am obligated by the law and ethics to do so.. (It really doesn't come up that much).

[LuvRPgrl]

Have you read the Supreme Court opinion on this issue? You should start there if you really want answers. If you don't really want answers and just wanna bitch - maybe you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force? It doesn't! So this means Air Force members don't have to salute the President.

I thought the PResident was Commander In Chief of the "armed forces" of which the Air Force is a part of?

[SpidermanTUba]

I thought the PResident was Commander In Chief of the "armed forces" of which the Air Force is a part of?

Then I guess you haven't read the Constitution.

[LuvRPgrl]

Then I guess you haven't read the Constitution.

You guess wrong. Mine was a serious question

[SpidermanTUba]

You guess wrong. Mine was a serious question

If you were serious you would have looked it up yourself. Not sure why I have to do this for you.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Air Force is not part of the Army. It used to be but was split into a separate branch of service following shortly after WW II.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you were serious you would have looked it up yourself. Not sure why I have to do this for you.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Air Force is not part of the Army. It used to be but was split into a separate branch of service following shortly after WW II.

and when that split occured, who was assigned command over it?

You did that for me cuz your my lapdog

[Gaffer]

and when that split occured, who was assigned command over it?

You did that for me cuz your my lapdog

Gotta spread the rep around. Stupidtuba can't seem to grasp that the Air Force is part of the Armed Services. As is the Coast Guard.