Supreme Court: Suspects Can be Interrogated Without Lawyer

[Orwellian_Ghost]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

<snip>

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

<snip>

The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

<snip>

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/05/26/court_suspect_must_ask_for_atty_to_get_protection/

[rockymountaindem]

1. So now the police can question us even after we've asked for a lawyer?

Great.

[virgogal]

2. You don't have to answer.

[pacalo]

5. ...providing you're not being beaten to get the preferred answers

& the police behave professionally.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. They can make up shit and pretend you said it. Their word against yours,

With the old protections in place, as long as you said "I want a lawyer" they were no longer able to make up statements. We all know that law enforcement thinks that everyone they arrest is guilty. Therefore, they will lie in order to get a conviction. Dallas, Tx was especially notorious for this in the past.

[paulsby]

10. utter crap

first of all law enforcement does NOT think everyone they arrest is guilty. god knows i don't

furthermore, if they can lie to make up statements, they can also lie and claim you never asked for a lawyer in the first place, so your logic is flawed.

[defendandprotect]

14. No, his logic isn't flawed -- the betrayal and lies are simply broader than he stated . . .

including the well known "throw down" --

and plant of drugs --

[paulsby]

20. yes. some cops are corrupt

so are some lawyers, some judges, some prosecutors, some witnesses, some victims (duke rape case anyone) , some politicians (lol), some accountants, etc.

fortunately, the SCOTUS does not make decisions on constitutional rights based on the idea that "well some cops are corrupt, therefore ..."

[defendandprotect]

27. We have a situation with police and police brutality which has mandated FED oversight . . .

Not to mention racial profiling -- !

We've basically had a police force KKK action across the US over the last decades.

At the time of the JFK assassination, 50% of the Dallas force was KKK

At the time of the RFK assassination, 50% of the LAPD was John Birchers

We're not talking about "some" --

and further, the phoney drug war couldn't possibily proceed without the cooperation

of police enforcement and higher ups.

Volpe was evidently sniffing cocaine from the dashboard of his car just before or after

sodomizing Louima with a broken plunger!

Simply coincidental that these same perversions are being dictated by elected officials

and performed by soldiers? I think not!

The basis of this kind of attempt to debase and degrade is centered in mysogyny and

homophobia -- and desire for control over others.

fortunately, the SCOTUS does not make decisions on constitutional rights based on the idea that "well some cops are corrupt, therefore ..."

Rather naive of them . . .

Earl Warren wasn't that naive --

[paulsby]

30. hyperbole noted

i am not going to waste my time responding to somebody who refers to such ridiculous statistics w.o providing cites. especially the john bircher and kkk one.

puhleeze.

fwiw, i'm against the drug war. plenty of cops are. we don't make the laws.

the law on drugs and the war on domestic violence have both resulted in intrusion into basic civil rights and have caused a lot of harm in some excesses. that we can probably agree on.

[Usrename]

37. Why do you think this change in the law was necessary?

If you think that the purpose isn't to make it easier for law enforcement to make shit up, what is the reason?

[paulsby]

44. why do you insist on strawmen

i never said this change was necessary. i never said it was a positive thing, either.

please quote where i did.

also, as i explained, constitutional law analysis is not based on purposes, like making it easier for law enforcement to "make shit up".

it is based on... wait for it... the constitution.

i happen to work in a state that is much more restrictive than the federal standard vis a vis search and seizure. why? because our CONSTITUTION mandates it (we have an explicitly mentioned right to privacy in WA constitution)

[Usrename]

55. No strawman here. You might be misunderstanding my question.

Do you think this change in the law was totally arbitrary or do you think it has some purpose?

Has the Constitution changed somehow from what it was before this ruling?

It is not a strawman to make note of the fact that you have already rather vehemently rejected the proposition that this ruling will help officers who like to make shit up, and that that may be the crux of the whole case.

[paulsby]

59. yes, it IS a strawman

you asked me "why do you think this change in the law is necessary"

that assumes that i did think it was necessary.

i said no such thing. i disagreesd with aspects of the analysis of what this ruling means.

most of these issues are based on interpretation. iow, the constitution, for example, does NOT say that custodial interrogation made w/o miranda warnings are suppressable.

that was based on prior analysis of cases, as well as interpretation of the (primarily) 5th amendment.

this is a MUCH narrower ruling than people understand. which is not surprising. most of the analysis on this law is completely faulty, because they haven't analyzed the position. what they are doing is relying on a frigging article. god forbid.

the previous case was michigan vs. jackson. michigan v. jackson has long been a contrversial case.

this case cleared up a distinction. it said basically there is a difference between saying at an arraignment, where lawyers are routinely assigned, that you want a lawyer for trial and saying during an interrogation that you want to talk to a lawyer before talking.

under jackson, once the lawyer was assigned, that was it. even if the defendant WAIVED his right and said he wanted to talk w/o the lawyer. didn't matter.

do i think this decision is reasonable? yes. i'm still wading through the legal documents, but it seems sound.

do i agree with it? i haven't come to a legal conclusion, but based on what i have read this far, it is at least reasonable.

fwiw, the obama administration argued FOR this decision before it came down.

[defendandprotect]

40. Your desire to ignore . . .

is noted --

It is common knowledge that our police have been under FED supervision for decades --

"racial profiling" doesn't ring a bell with you . . . puhleeze.

No one is arguing whether police like the Drug War or not -- you're again ignoring that

I'm saying to you they are part of the corruption.

And, evidently you're also unhappy in being expected to protect against domestic violence!

I doubt that women being beaten in their homes consider police enforcement against their

abusers "an intrusion into their basic civil rights" -- !!!

:eyes:

And, brutal police enforcement also extends into the political now where police --

who more often now look like Gestapo -- are interfering with the right to free assembly.

Not in any interest of protecting democracy, but in protecting corporatism and corrupt

government.

[paulsby]

45. strawmen abound

since you don't understand HOW the war on drugs and war on domestic violence have impinged on rights, i'm not going to explain it to you.

why don't you ask a question if you don't understand, instead of spouting from ignorance?

some examples of how the war on domestic violence have worked against individual rights are -

1) judges will often issue protective orders AGAINST a victim's (usually a woman, but not always) wishes and refuse to lift the order. that interferes with the right to free assocation.

rights matter. maybe to you they don't. to me, they do.

[defendandprotect]

51. You're obviously much for . . .

dealing with info before you --

Are you denying that various state policing have been under FED supervision?

And when you get there . . . try to acknowledge the reasons . . .


Anyone who has to try to label racism and racial profiling as "strawmen" is

desperate to run from the subject.


I understand that the Drug War cannot succeed because high officials and corrupt

police enforcement -- not to mention our CIA -- are all corrupt players in the

Drug War.


The reason the police are now FORCED to act in holding abusers responsible for the

damage they do -- most often to women -- is because women are often threatened by

their spouses or S/Os to NOT go forward with charges.

That's why the regulations/laws were changed!

And you're in police enforcement?

Gawd help us!

[paulsby]

53. the drug war can't succeed

because in our highly individualistic and rights respecting society, it is simply impossible to keep drugs out of people's hands.

it's a failure, and it was DESTINED to be a failure.

in a MUCH more conformist culture, and one with much more powerful govt. investigation powers, like japan, drug use is going to be much less.

fwiw, rights matter. here's a hint. not everybody ACCUSED of a crime is actually guilty of it. the war on drugs AND the war on DV have resulted in less due process to SUSPECTS who have not been determined GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt.

a mere preponderance of evidence can result in these protective orders for instance.

i know women who desperately want to be with their bfriends, and men who desperately want to be with their gf's but CAN'T because judges refuse to lift the orders, and there hasn't even been an ADJUDICATION OF GUILT.

due process aint so due.

in the war on drugs, we have similar problems with, for example, civil forfeiture of property.

rights matter. they matter for people accused of drug crimes. some of whom, fwiw are innocent, and all of whom should be PRESUMTED innocent.

the same applies to those accused of domestic violence.

people like you, who welcome govt. intrusion into civil rights think it's perfectly ok for rights to be violated as long as it's a good cause.

see: ends justifies the means

[defendandprotect]

57. The Drug War was intended to be a war on blacks . . .

and to fill our prisons -- which it has accomplished --

It is also intended to suppress freedoms which enriching high level officials ---

and corrupting government and police enforcement.

The Drug War is a fake from beginning to end --- and we should legalize marijuana.

Our entire system of justice has been corrupted -- and that is true from the Death

Penalty vs Life Imprisonment -- and the reality that so many innocents are on Death Row!

Our prisons are filled with African-Americans and other minorities -- it is a racist

system.

And, police enforcement is now being enriched by confiscating property!

Again, in most cases women are suffering emotionally and physically from the years of

abuse infliected upon them by their "boyfriends" and spouses. Maybe you recall what

Lisa Steinberg's adoptive mother looked like by the time they got to her??

And, of course, by then, Lisa was also dead.

Again -- if you're at all familiar with the Stockholm Studies -- battered women identify

with their abusers, just as prisoners who are abused identity with their captors.

Remember, Patricia Hearst?

When the violent and the ignorant take hold of government thru violence they continue on

to make our society in their image. From "third world America" to torture.

[paulsby]

58. ignored the point

you still ignore the point.

yes, domestic violence is bad.

it does NOT therefore follow that it is ok to diminish the rights of domestic violence SUSPECTS, to penalize their (and their alleged victims) rights to free association , etc. due to a judge's decision w/o the benefit of a jury trial, standard rules of evidence, etc.

see, here's the difference between us. i believe the constitution applies. you are willing to increase govt. power and diminish due process for a "good cause". all tyrants (bush comes to mind) make the same argument.

again, not all domestic violence suspects are even guilty of anything, let alone should they be deprived of due process.

and many 'victims' are also victimized when the state steps in and tells them they have no RIGHT to associate with the person they love. sorry, big brother don't play with me. you are apparently fine with that.

[defendandprotect]

60. The damage done, the abuse these women suffer is now being prosecuted . . .

Acknowledgment of the violence of males -- and the abuse women have long suffered

at the hands of their S/O, spouses is what led the Congress and Courts to

turn the situation around ---

thus the INSISTENCE that charges be filed if damage has been done ---

and indeed damage has been done.

Previously women used to have to press charges for the damage --

NOW the police officers are forced to press charges for the damage --

You are ignoring the reality of the damage.

Again, STATES, COURTS, and CONGRESS recognized that that women are too'

often intimidated in these cases to file charges. Many times they filed

charges and then -- threatened and intimidated by the abuser -- they dropped

the charges.

NOW the police file the charges DUE TO THE DAMAGE DONE.

When the damage stops, there will be no necessity to prosecute these men.

[paulsby]

61. you make my point

nobody denies that domestic violence is bad.

i have arrested SCORES of domestic violence abusers (mostly men, but a fair amount of women) and helped many many victims.

that's not the point.

the point is that we don't shortcut due process, we do not expand state power, etc. all to attack a problem.

that's what bush did with the patriot act (and congress)

that's what has been done in the war on drugs.

and that's what's been done on the war on domestic violence.

nobody denies that there is a problem.

heck, there were a LOT of problems in how we protected against terrorist threats prior to 911. it does NOT follow that the patriot act was okey dokey.

many domestic violence suspects are INNOCENT. the reality of the crime is (and i say this as somebody who has investigated hundreds of crimes of all sorts) that due to its nature (often no witnesses and an animus between accuser and accused) there is a high rate of false complaints.

that's a reality any defense attorney will tell you.

even if 99% of all domestic violence suspects were actually guilty (which is nowhere near the case), it does not justify diminished due process, violation of both the accusers and the suspects right to free association, etc.

that's how it works if you value civil rights, rule of law, etc.

go speak to a defense attorney who specializes in domestic violence. they will say the same thing i am saying.

no matter how odious bona fide domestic abusers are, we don't take shortcuts and diminish due process.

the ends do NOT justify the means.

again, but that;'s because i respect the constitution, rule of law, due process, etc.

you don't. i get that.

there are plenty on the right who feel equally, they are just more likely ot curtail that stuff when it comes to terror suspects.

same disease.

[defendandprotect]

62. Again, evidence shows that women have been frightened into withdrawing

complants -- are you denying that?

The courts have stepped in SIMPLY TO MAKE THE POLICE OFFICER the bringer of

charges against the abuser.

That's all--

[paulsby]

63. not correct

but not surprising.

first of all, police officers do not bring charges. prosecuting attorneys (or to be technical, their assistant prosecuting attorney as well) do.

police gather evidence, and can arrest for PC, and they can gather further evidence, and they can recommend charges, but ONLY prosecutors can charge anybody

so, on that fact you are simply wrong.

now, back to your other point.

yes, there is a problem when actual victims are afraid to press charges. fwiw, that's a problem in MANY crimes besides domestic violence.

but ... i repeat... the end does not justify the means, it does not justify going AGAINST "victim's" wishes by issuing protective orders against their desires, and refusing to lift them. poor women/victims are especailly hurt by this because they can't hire attorneys to plead their case to get the order lifted.

that's one example of greatly expanded govt. power.

you have a very simplistic view of this situation. i deal with victims, false victims (iow they make a false complaint), suspects, defendants, witnesses, and most sad ... the children who witness and are negatively affected by domestic violence FREQUENTLY.

again, consult a frigging defense attorney who specializes in DV's. they will tell you what i am telling you.

and again, just like the system we had to investigate terrorism, we had problems before and they needed fixing.

gutting people's rights and running over due process is not the cure, though.

that is, IF you believe in civil rights.

i do.

[defendandprotect]

64. It's more than obvious . . .

that you want to play game of semantics ...

The basis is -- as you know -- that the ONUS is taken from the women and put onto

those investigating. If there is evidence of abuse/violence, then charges are filed.

Meanwhile, find someone else to play games with --

And, let's all hope that the future holds more promise and less Gestapo tactics for

our police departments.






Posted by paulsby
but not surprising.

first of all, police officers do not bring charges. prosecuting attorneys (or to be technical, their assistant prosecuting attorney as well) do.

police gather evidence, and can arrest for PC, and they can gather further evidence, and they can recommend charges, but ONLY prosecutors can charge anybody

so, on that fact you are simply wrong.

now, back to your other point.

yes, there is a problem when actual victims are afraid to press charges. fwiw, that's a problem in MANY crimes besides domestic violence.

but ... i repeat... the end does not justify the means, it does not justify going AGAINST "victim's" wishes by issuing protective orders against their desires, and refusing to lift them. poor women/victims are especailly hurt by this because they can't hire attorneys to plead their case to get the order lifted.

that's one example of greatly expanded govt. power.

you have a very simplistic view of this situation. i deal with victims, false victims (iow they make a false complaint), suspects, defendants, witnesses, and most sad ... the children who witness and are negatively affected by domestic violence FREQUENTLY.

again, consult a frigging defense attorney who specializes in DV's. they will tell you what i am telling you.

and again, just like the system we had to investigate terrorism, we had problems before and they needed fixing.

gutting people's rights and running over due process is not the cure, though.

that is, IF you believe in civil rights.

i do.

[paulsby]

65. it's more than obvious

that you like to use buzzwords like "gestapo tactics" based on your obvious anti-police bias, but ironically are totally ok with "gestapo tactics" as long as they are used against domestic violence suspects.

how ironic, alanis

[Ignis]

49. Translation: "ridiculous statistics" = "a few bad apples"

We know the drill by now; it's quite similar to No True Scotsman, isn't it? :shrug:

[Froward69]

39. 5th amenment

still allows you to STFU.

[defendandprotect]

41. Unfortunately, the likelihood of being beaten or maybe thrown down a flight of stairs . . .

tends to make people talk -- whether they want to or not.

Earl Warren understood that -- Mark Furhman had a lot to say about that --

And, police brutality can't be denied -- we see it in ever manner in police

enforcement now -- and throughout prisons -- and politically!

[Cronopio]

43. Not only that ...

... but refusing to incrimate yourself by talking can be the basis of incrimination by the police. Why isn't the defendant talking? Well, of course, he's guilty - he's got something to hide. Well, we'd better violate his rights and waterboard him to get him to talk, because he's forcing us to do so.

You want a likely reason for this SCOTUS decision - there it is. Legal (not moral) justification of torture. Getting away with torture always require that you set up a situation where the defendant's claims cannot be independently verified.

[defendandprotect]

47. You're absolutely right . . .

and that's even a more frightening reality.

A lot to think about in what you are saying --

and, I honestly hadn't reached that point of thought before.

It is inescapable to see, however, that they are overturning the Constitution.

These are the things that happen with the rise of the right --

and, of course, the right only rises thru political violence which has gone

unacknowledged here in America for decades.

Violence and stolen elections, of course. What the CIA did all over the world

post-WWII, it has also been doing at home.

[vadawg]

4. yup but as it says you dont need to talk to them

just means that if you start to talk, then the popo can use it even if you have asked for a lawyer, kinda makes sense i think, though i will have to wait until i get the change officially before ill understand the impact of interviews etc.

[MadHound]

6. You actually think that police will sit there nicely, waiting for you to talk of your own volition?

There are numerous police and police departments around the country who are famous, or infamous as the case may be, for being able to "persuade" suspects to talk. By mandating that a lawyer be present for the testimony to be valid meant that the reason, need and temptation to "persuade" those arrested was removed.

Now we can go back to those joyous days of padded blackjacks and footlashing, doesn't leave bruises you know.

[vadawg]

7. As i said i dont see a problem with it, but ill wait until i get the official word

until i draw a final conclusion, hopefully the bad guys wont know of the difference and think the old rules apply, should be worth a few extra convictions.

[MadHound]

9. So it's OK with you that police now have a reason to go back to the bad old days?

Let me put this a little plainer for you. Back before this ruling became law, police would have a little "talk" with the person they just arrested, trying to get something incriminating, or better yet, a full fledged confession. They would use a number of painful, even torturous means to do this, including beatings with instruments that left no incriminating bruises. This was SOP in a number of police precincts around the country.

By ruling that a defense lawyer needed to be present in order for conversations to be admitted into court, the need and temptation for such torture was taken away. Now they are overturning that, meaning that once again you can expect people, not convicts, not criminals, but somebody who was arrested, to be beaten and tortured. And you're down with that? Wow, has our country proceeded that far down the path that people like you are OK with torture? Sad, very sad.

[vadawg]

11. lol leap away, as i said i got no problwm with a perp telling me stuff

even after hes asked for a lawyer, as i said most of them wont even know theres a change in the law and assume its inadmissable, so it should be good for a few convictions, but as i said ill wait and see what official policy is.

[MadHound]

15. No leap, it's a fact

It happened before, it will happen again. But you're OK with torture, just so long as it brings in a "few convictions". Shows what sort of person you are, and none of it's good.

[vadawg]

19. thank you for your concern, but sont worry i will be okay

[MadHound]

21. Not concerned about you, not personally.

I'm just concerned about what you and your sorry ilk have done to this country. Made it acceptable, even desirable to torture our own citizens simply to force a false confession. It is people like you who have enabled this police state, cheered the torture committed in our names. And sadly, you're proud of that.

This place is sounding more and more like Nazi Germany each and every day, complete with the requisite "good Germans" in the cheering section.

[merh]

24. Do you actually believe the press when they report that SCOTUS

doesn't protect your right to an attorney?

If so, well you didn't read the opinion. You are just trusting the media with their scare headlines.

[MadHound]

26. No, I actually read the opinion,

And know enough of legal matters to see what it says. And yes, the opinion certainly states that under certain circumstances a suspect can be questioned without their lawyer being present. In fact if you read the opinion yourself, you would see that it states right up front "1. Michigan v. Jackson should be and now is overruled. Pp. 3–18. "

Sad to see so many people lining up with Scalia, Roberts, et. al. in favor of fewer and fewer defendants' rights. Let me guess, you're right there with the above poster who's hoping for a "few extra convictions".

[merh]

32. You guessed wrong,

I'm big on the truth and the rule of law. I don't jump to bogus conclusions because the press said I should.

See, it's language like this that I think you missed in your reading.

It is worth emphasizing first what is not in dispute or at stake here. Under our precedents, once the adversary judicial process has been initiated, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have counsel present at all “critical” stages of the criminal proceedings. United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 227–228 (1967) ; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57 (1932) . Interrogation by the State is such a stage. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 204–205 (1964) ; see also United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 274 (1980)

Montejo understandably did not pursue an Edwards objection, because Jackson served as the Sixth Amendment analogy to Edwards and offered broader protections. Our decision today, overruling Jackson, changes the legal landscape and does so in part based on the protections already provided by Edwards. Thus we think that a remand is appropriate so that Montejo can pursue this alternative avenue for relief. Montejo may also seek on remand to press any claim he might have that his Sixth Amendment waiver was not knowing and voluntary, e.g., his argument that the waiver was invalid because it was based on misrepresentations by police as to whether he had been appointed a lawyer, cf. Moran, 475 U. S., at 428–429. These matters have heightened importance in light of our opinion today./b]

We do not venture to resolve these issues ourselves, not only because we are a court of final review, “not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709 , n. 7 (2005), but also because the relevant facts remain unclear. Montejo and the police gave inconsistent testimony about exactly what took place on the afternoon of September 10, 2002, and the Louisiana Supreme Court did not make an explicit credibility determination. Moreover, Montejo’s testimony came not at the suppression hearing, but rather only at trial, and we are unsure whether under state law that testimony came too late to affect the propriety of the admission of the evidence. These matters are best left for resolution on remand.

and this

Although our holding means that the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly rejected Montejo’s claim under Jackson, we think that Montejo should be given an opportunity to contend that his letter of apology should still have been suppressed under the rule of Edwards. If Montejo made a clear assertion of the right to counsel when the officers approached him about accompanying them on the excursion for the murder weapon, then no interrogation should have taken place unless Montejo initiated it. Davis, supra, at 459. Even if Montejo subsequently agreed to waive his rights, that waiver would have been invalid had it followed an “unequivocal election of the right,” Cobb, 532 U. S., at 176 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

See, the key is, the Defendant is being affording hearings broader than what he requested. SCOTUS did not slam the door in his face, which had they upheld Michigan v Jackson, they could have done. They are saying he is entitled to more hearings to determine if he knowingly and willingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

[MadHound]

33. So even Fat Tony is recognizing that there was inconsistent testimony from the cops

Yet rather than take that into consideration, he and his bully boys decide to ride roughshod and destroy Michigan v Jackson instead, absolutely guaranteeing that that there will be further "inconsistent testimony," ie lying, by police officers across the land.

Sorry, but the more you quote this stinking pile, the deeper you're digging yourself. There is no way to sugarcoat this one, once more we've had our legal rights and legal defenses diminished in this.

[merh]

34. What - is this the first time you caught that?

I thought you read the opinion and knew what they held.

Yes, SCOTUS, even Fat Tony, realized the case had issues and that the record was not clear as to whether or not Montejo not only waived his right without intimidation from the cops, but also whether he understood the rights he was waiving.

The facts of this case suck and you can't blame SCOTUS for that. It appears his court appointed attorney didn't go to him after the preliminary and tell him "don't talk to the cops". It is obvious said court appointed attorney wholly failed to argue that his initial confession should be suppressed. He didn't ask the court to determine whether or not he was capable to waive his rights. He didn't try to ascertain if the confession was coerced and should have been suppressed. Hell, as Scalia noted, the efforts to suppress the letter happened during testimony (one would assume through an objection) - not exactly the best way to get confessions and the damaging documents prepared during the confessions suppressed.

See, I don't like Scalia, I think he is a horrible justice and most of his opinions have sucked. But he has amazed me with some of his opinions. His dissent in Sorich is encouraging. It looks like he is trying to get the court to invalidate federal laws that have been used in the political prosecution cases.

And go read Arizona v. Gant. He joined the majority - he agreed with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Thomas on a case that held the cops may search a vehicle without a warrant only when the suspect could reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence or when it is "reasonable to believe" there is evidence in the car supporting the crime at hand.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf

This opinion is not the horrible opinion folks are making it out to be. They actually give Montejo another shot at justice and direct his attorneys how to go about representing their attorney. They gave him another shot - that matters -- the defendants in the cases matter.

[defendandprotect]

48. If Obama is going to leave the Bush 51 "loyalists" in DOJ . . .

it's not good.

[madmusic]

52. Wish I could rec your post n/t

[merh]

54. thank you

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your post.

It is maddening that reasonable people want to believe the headlines over the facts. I was beginning to wonder if my posts made any sense.

:hi:

[L0oniX]

18. Water boarding is next.

[merh]

23. No, they still have to stop once you ask for a lawyer.

The article does not proper state what the decision holds.

[Auggie]

3. Why, Mr. President? Who got to you?

[Greyhound]

35. Have you ever heard Bill Hick's bit on becoming the new President?

"But there's no hope in Clinton," he continues. "It's just a handful of people that run everything, and that's provable.... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'

"Just what my agenda is."

[Auggie]

36. I wouldn't be surprised

[L0oniX]

12. Thanks a lot you fucking asscarrot ...you'll never see a vote from me ever again.

I am sick and tired of this shit ...I expected much better.

I will vote for Dem Kucinich 2012

BTW I will never support or vote for a repuke!

[defendandprotect]

16. For our own safety, this had best be . . .

a one term president -- !!!

Tell me this is a nightmare we're all going to wake up from!!!

[L0oniX]

17. We've been used like a condom to boink the repukes and then discarded.

I suppose the cops will be water boarding us without a lawyer next.

[solstice]

28. From me either.

[defendandprotect]

13. In all the other bad news, this has gotten overlooked --

Either Obama is in agreement with the Bush GOP loyalists still in the DOJ --

51 ofthem--!!! --- or they are running their own show?

This is disgraceful.

And very threatening to us all.

[merh]

22. Why do so many people rely on the media?

Read the court's opinion and you will see that it is not what this article (and all the others) make it out to be.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

Here is a link to a thread with discussion of the case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5733772

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5723124

[MadHound]

25. I have read the court's opinion,

Why do you assume that people haven't?

Furthermore, you lambaste people for relying on the media, yet offer up to links to DU(naw, we're not biased) as sources.

Next time, assume that people around here are intelligent so you won't insult us, and only link to real sources, like the opinion, or *gasp* a decent media source.

[merh]

29. I offered you the OPINION as the source.

And the discussion had with others, where the language from said opinion is quoted to prove that the media is not reporting accurately.

What SCOTUS said is that more recent opinions that contain clearer language and more specific guidelines provide the same protections as Michigan v. Jackson provided.

What this article does say is that there was a split in the circuits and not all of the courts in the US were applying Michigan v. Jackson in the same manner because it was convoluted.

What this article does report is that SCOTUS remanded Montejo to the Louisiana courts to conduct hearings to determine if Montejo properly waived his right to counsel and/or if the police improperly baggered him into waiving the right. They also suggested that it be determined if Montejo could intelligently and knowingly waive his right.

See, that's the real kicker - Montejo waived his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. He gave the initial confession when he was just a suspect as an accomplice. The appeal is based on a confession given and a letter written after he first confessed and after his preliminary hearing when a court appointed attorney was assigned to represent him. The controversy arose because he did not verbally ask for the attorney, the court assigned him one. He didn't met with that attorney and when the cops interviewed him again, they gave him his Miranda warnings. According to the cops, he willingly waived his rights and confessed some more and then wrote the letter apologizing to the family of the victim.

SCOTUS said the versions of what transpired are not clear and the Louisiana court should hold hearings to determine that he was afforded his rights and that his writes were protected as outlined in Edwards and a whole host of other cases.

[MadHound]

31. Some of us are way ahead of the curve,

Not waiting to get to DU to find the opinion, OK. Don't think that you or DU is the be all and end of news.

And the real funny thing, and what Michigan v Jackson was designed to do away with, was wording like this, "According to the cops, he willingly waived his rights and confessed some more and then wrote the letter apologizing to the family of the victim."

This is why counsel needs to be present in these matters, because quite frankly you can't trust the police on these sorts of things, too many people have gotten burned before.

But that's OK, line up with Scalia and Roberts on this one. Just hope that you don't wind up getting arrested while at a protest, you might just get a friendly little "persuasion" to get you to talk in that time before your lawyer arrives.

They're tossing the baby out with the bath water on this one, and in the process taking away more and more of our civil liberties and our legal protections.

[defendandprotect]

42. Heartily agree --

[blindpig]

38. Way to go....

Let's not shilly-shally around and just get all of these niceties out of the way. Apparently even the facade of justice is no longer required.

k&r

[RedCappedBandit]

46. WTF

This is pure BS

[maryf]

50. K&R wtf nt

[leftofthedial]

56. cops are already out of control in this country.

all the "centrist" authoritarians should be pleased.

What's up with Obama asking to overturn this? Who the hell and what the hell has he become?

[kenny blankenship]

66. You know where suspects get most of their advice on their legal rights?

From cops. The cops shouting in their faces and threatening them with ass-rape in prison every night for 20 yrs. should they go to trial and plead not guilty. The same cops who are allowed to lie to them and tell them they'll definitely get a suspended sentence if they just sign this confession, etc...

Most people don't know the first thing about their Constitutional rights and anything that interferes with their right to counsel is intended to make certain that they're in prison before they ever do.