lord_casek Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police, under certain circumstances, can initiate an interrogation of a suspect without the defendant's lawyer being present. By a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority overruled a 23-year-old Supreme Court decision that barred the police from initiating questioning after a defendant asserted the right to an attorney at an arraignment or similar proceeding. The 1986 decision held that once a defendant invoked the right to counsel, only the suspect, and not the police, can initiate the contact. The ruling was the latest in a recent string by conservative justices expanding the power of police to question suspects, but it does not change the landmark 1966 ruling barring the police from questioning a suspect who invoked the right to remain silent or have a lawyer present. The decision was a defeat for Jesse Jay Montejo, a Louisiana death row inmate. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a dry-cleaning operator during a robbery in 2002. He initially waived his right to a lawyer and was questioned by the police. He told several conflicting stories. Several days later, he appeared in court for a preliminary hearing and a local judge appointed a lawyer to represent Montejo, who could not afford an attorney. Later that day, police investigators approached Montejo in prison and he again waived his right to a lawyer. But Montejo later claimed the police had violated his constitutional right to counsel by interrogating him without his lawyer being present and pressuring him to write a letter confessing and apologizing to the victim's wife. That letter was later introduced as evidence against him at his trial. The Louisiana Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Montejo's appeal. Writing for the court majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said there was little if any chance a defendant will be badgered into waiving the right to have counsel present during police-initiated questioning. In overruling the 1986 decision, Scalia said, "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present." Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the 1986 decision, disagreed. In dissent, Stevens said the dubious benefits of overruling the decision are far outweighed by damage to the rule of law and the integrity of the constitutional right to an attorney. (Editing by Vicki Allen) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54P47120090526?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews The police state is here, folks. What are you going to do about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Not tell the cops shit unless there's a lawyer there? I'm fairly sure the 72 hour rule still applies most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cult Of Skaro Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Casek we find this to be an interesting decision on that will be revisited in the near future since they do not make clear the instances in which police may initiate questioning and the instances in which they can not. It also does not make clear the amount of times they may attempt to question you without your lawyer before it crosses the line into intimidation, and other obviously illegal circumstances. We find that this overall is a horrible decision and that this should be reversed to prevent the growing power of the police state that exists. Maybe if legal education were part of our education in high school we would not have such problems. * The Cult Of Skaro * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 27, 2009 Author Share Posted May 27, 2009 Casek we find this to be an interesting decision on that will be revisited in the near future since they do not make clear the instances in which police may initiate questioning and the instances in which they can not. It also does not make clear the amount of times they may attempt to question you without your lawyer before it crosses the line into intimidation, and other obviously illegal circumstances. We find that this overall is a horrible decision and that this should be reversed to prevent the growing power of the police state that exists. Maybe if legal education were part of our education in high school we would not have such problems. * The Cult Of Skaro * Dr. Who much? i would guess, from experience, that police will use this any time they please. the special circumstances are not so special after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastZeetec302 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 wont people just not talk until they can have a real lawyer with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 You've never been arrested before, have you? The cops will do ANYTHING they can to get you to sign a statement before you've talked to a lawyer, been arraigned, sometimes even before you get booked. If they really have you by the balls they'll do everything by the book, but if they don't have much to go on and they pick you up, they can pretty much do whatever they want to try to get a confession out of you within the first 24-72 hours. Deny you calls, slap you around, not give you food, take away your clothes and "forget" to give you a jumpsuit...shit happens, you just got lost in the system. They do it to shake you up, and if they know you haven't been through the system they know that it's way more likely to work. Granted, not all cops are like this. Unfortunately, now that it's a career choice and not a civic duty, there's a lot of people who are in it to just to get a paycheck and move up the ladder...and the easiest way they can do that is to look like they're out there kicking ass and taking names. If you get caught up in a case where there's a 50-50 chance they can convict you based on circumstantial evidence without going to trial, God help you if there's a round of promotions coming up...you will get leaned on in the same way a used car dealer tries to close a sale. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Shai speaking the truth. If you don't have any experience going through the system, you really don't know shit. Here is an awesome clip from I know a made up TV show, however it gets the point a cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeToys Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 The last time I was arrested I started talking about irrelevant nonsense for extended periods and giving several contradictory untrue answers to every question I was asked. After 20 minutes they got sick of it and told me to shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastZeetec302 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 You've never been arrested before, have you? The cops will do ANYTHING they can to get you to sign a statement before you've talked to a lawyer, been arraigned, sometimes even before you get booked. If they really have you by the balls they'll do everything by the book, but if they don't have much to go on and they pick you up, they can pretty much do whatever they want to try to get a confession out of you within the first 24-72 hours. Deny you calls, slap you around, not give you food, take away your clothes and "forget" to give you a jumpsuit...shit happens, you just got lost in the system. They do it to shake you up, and if they know you haven't been through the system they know that it's way more likely to work. Granted, not all cops are like this. Unfortunately, now that it's a career choice and not a civic duty, there's a lot of people who are in it to just to get a paycheck and move up the ladder...and the easiest way they can do that is to look like they're out there kicking ass and taking names. If you get caught up in a case where there's a 50-50 chance they can convict you based on circumstantial evidence without going to trial, God help you if there's a round of promotions coming up...you will get leaned on in the same way a used car dealer tries to close a sale. nah ive been arrested before but thats besides the point. and this^ is the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 as you can see every day we loose our freedoms and the cops and govt get more control and there aint shit we can do because they have all the power and weve gave it to em cause we all want to sit around eating cheese burgers watching tv and drinking coolaid fuck this if i get busted and them fools try to get me to talk ima say the most randomist shit ever start talking about santa clause and shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cult Of Skaro Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Dr. Who much? i would guess, from experience, that police will use this any time they please. the special circumstances are not so special after all. The real question of this decision is not whether or not the police will use this decision over and over again. (which no doubt they will) But under what circumstances the police are allowed to question you without your lawyer present even after requesting your lawyer. For example in this decision the suspect had already agreed to questioning without his lawyer present. Does this decision also allow for the police to question you if you have asked for your lawyer from the very beginning of questioning? I would think that an excellent argument could be made that it does not. The supreme court has routinely sided with the police when it comes to issues where people by agreeing to contact with the police waive their rights, such as a consensual stop where the person being stopped later claims they were to intimidated by the presence of the police to leave. Or someone who agrees to make a statement to the police and waives their right to legal counsel but then later acquires legal counsel and asks for their statement to be tossed out on the basis of they lacked legal representation. Any public defender should be able to make this argument, and it is hard to see the supreme court reversing years of precedent and allowing the executive branch such broad powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 the supreme court hasn't stopped police from using the patriot act to bust pot dealers, a toy shop, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 ahh yes the patriot act seeing as the dhc report said any one who dosent support the govts actions is a potential terrorist so that along with the patriot act they can do what ever the fuck they want to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cult Of Skaro Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The patriot act is due to expire, and I doubt that it will be renewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 The patriot act is due to expire, and I doubt that it will be renewed. only if you're living in july of 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 hahhaha there tryna get a new patriot act like a part two to the death of our freedoms the patriot act wont expire until they want it to or until we have a revolution and or evolution of our minds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouMad.GIF Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 the supreme court hasn't stopped police from using the patriot act to bust pot dealers, a toy shop, etc. actually the police have been using patriot act tactics on drug dealers and suspected traditional criminals for years before the patriot act. The tactics the act freed up were all techniques used in the war on drugs, and many people who penned the act openly admit it was a way to use these same methods for "terrorists" except minus the reasonable cause they had to have (or make up) in order to have evidence hold up in court. Basically the patriot gave everyone in America the same civil rights as a pre-911 drug dealer under investigation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Hey guys...they aren't rights if they can be taken away. If you walk around flaunting the fact that you're breaking the law and generally acting like a dumbass then I don't feel sorry for you. For example, you do NOT have a right to get shithammered and pick a fight with some dude because he looked at your GF three times. On the other hand, very few US citizens have been scooped up by the secret police in the US for no reason and held incommunicado. I realize one is too many, but the chances of it happening to you or me? Infinitesimally small at best. Like I said, the cops have been doing this for....well, since forever. They're human, even though I don't like it they have lapses of judgment and sometimes those lapses coincide with them bending the rules to do whatever's expedient or effective. If you can't accept that, then try to live as clean of a life as you can and hope for the best if you don't. But you DON'T have to talk to anyone if you don't have legal counsel, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouMad.GIF Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Really Just shut up if you are too stupid to keep your story straight or not incriminate yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 ^^^ which translates to STFU in 99.999999999% of situations you encounter police. even by stating your alibi you could be giving them material to book you for another crime. for instance... they ask if you were at ___________. you say... no, i was at __________ (this other place) next thing you know you find out a robbery was committed by a guy dressed exactly like you at this other place, while they were investigating you for a crime committed at the first place. now you conveniently gave them info to detain you or arrest you for another offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cult Of Skaro Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 ^^^ which translates to STFU in 99.999999999% of situations you encounter police. even by stating your alibi you could be giving them material to book you for another crime. for instance... they ask if you were at ___________. you say... no, i was at __________ (this other place) next thing you know you find out a robbery was committed by a guy dressed exactly like you at this other place, while they were investigating you for a crime committed at the first place. now you conveniently gave them info to detain you or arrest you for another offense. first question is what kind of stop was it originally? Do the police have a reason to detain you? Lets say the police find drugs guns and midget hookers hiding in your trench coat and they stopped you for terrorism related charges. So you are a terrorist lets see them prove it. Unless you are facing federal charges, you will most likely never face court. So lets say you decide to sit in a cell and fight your charges what constitutes unreasonable bail with the right to a speedy trial. Hey enjoy a few days and no federal or state time; wow it's only a county vacation. Statutes+load+funding=Prosecuted What have people before you done in trial? Look at those cases all of those are precedent for your case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 first question is what kind of stop was it originally? Do the police have a reason to detain you? Lets say the police find drugs guns and midget hookers hiding in your trench coat and they stopped you for terrorism related charges. So you are a terrorist lets see them prove it. Unless you are facing federal charges, you will most likely never face court. So lets say you decide to sit in a cell and fight your charges what constitutes unreasonable bail with the right to a speedy trial. Hey enjoy a few days and no federal or state time; wow it's only a county vacation. Statutes+load+funding=Prosecuted What have people before you done in trial? Look at those cases all of those are precedent for your case. at least you have your midget hookers to keep you company in gitmo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 or the other 500 worst detainee camps throughout the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPMS556 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I dont know nothing about nothing !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouMad.GIF Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 everytime the police see me, they call me "no shit" Cuz when police ask me, I say "I don't know shit" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortFuse Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 boom boom boom..another right bites the dust. And another goes and another one goes another right bites the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 ya know what shortfuse, i was thinking about this a lot and decided one thing: i still have my inalienable rights no matter what the government or any man says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_R_O_N Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 gosh why dont they just make one giant bill saying FUCK YOUR RIGHTS NIGGA and be done with it. im sick of these niggas trying to systematically take shit away. just get it done in one fell swoop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 things would get pretty messy if that were to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreaken1993 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 gosh why dont they just make one giant bill saying FUCK YOUR RIGHTS NIGGA and be done with it. im sick of these niggas trying to systematically take shit away. just get it done in one fell swoop. i know right at least then motherfuckers would realize we screwd and want to do something about it this country is passed off deceit and it will end off deceit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.