Subscribe Today!
Networked Blogs
Feb
26
Supreme Court got new Miranda rules right
Filed Under Supreme Court | 1 Comment
Chris Buckley criticizes a recent Supreme Court decision that allows police some latitude in dealing with suspects who have been given their Miranda warning that they have the right to remain silent when they re-question the suspect at a later date, saying that the “Supreme Court delivers a major blow to Miranda rights.”
See Maryland v. Shatzer (PDF). See also Adam Liptak’s report in the New York Times, ”Court says Miranda rights don’t bar requestioning.”
I disagree that the Court made a wrong decision in Shatzer.
The Court held that police can re-question a suspect if more than 14 days have passed since the time they first held a suspect in custody, even if the suspect invoked her Miranda rights during the first interrogation.
In the case before the Court, the suspect waived his Miranda rights when he was questioned by a detective a second time.
Writes Justice Scalia:
Because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards does not mandate suppression of his March 2006 statements. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The Court made the right decision in Shatzer.
If you invoke your Miranda rights once, you should invoke them again.
If you decide to speak to the police and incriminate yourself, that’s the consequence of your decision to speak with the police. Suspects should not speak to the police voluntarily, then hope that their statements will be suppressed in later court cases.
Keep quiet, or speak boldly.
Don’t speak, then hope that your words will be supressed at a later date.
Photo credit: Thomas Hawk.
Jun
26
Historic 2nd Amendment Decision
Filed Under Second Amendment, Supreme Court | 7 Comments
Photo by Horizontal.Integration
People are allowed to have handguns in their homes, if they aren’t disqualified from exercising their Second Amendment rights, holds the U.S. Supreme Court majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), 554 U.S. ___ (2008).
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The Court split between conservatives and liberals. Justice Scalia delivered the Court’s opinion with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joining. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion and Justices Souter, Ginsurg, and Breyer joined. Justice Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion and he was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.
Justice Stevens writes in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.
It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court’s Heller decision has any effect on Gary, Indiana’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers.
It also underscores how important the 2008 presidential election will be if any of the justices retire during the 44th president’s term. In this case, it showed a differences between the Justices — the majority was in favor of individual liberties while the minority favored collective (in the form of a government militia) rights.
