If They Came To Your Door....

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

That video showed how much the police wasted time. A bit over the top, I'd say, and definitely unconstitutional.
If they were so concerned about doing those searches, there sure were a lot of them standing around doing
absolutely nothing.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

I agree about wasting time patting down people that were already cooperating. I understand they were operating with an element of the unknown ie is this just the start of something bigger and is one of these homeowners actually harboring and prepared to become a martyr........but I also think that when they allowed the city to become the police state that it was then they pretty much have allowed these cowards to achieve their goal.

[E4 No More]

I think many on here need to quit their day job and go to law school. Based on some of the statements on here, so many members on here would be so screwed in this situation that they'd need a lifetime supply of hemorrhoid creme. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that your individual rights do not over-ride public safety. In simplistic terms as an example, your 1st Amendment right to free speech does NOT entitle you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre for the giggles of it. You can simply and clearly state that you give no consent to search of your premises if it makes you feel better, but you'd be making a big mistake attempting to block them from entering.

 

As far as being read his Miranda Warning, I thought that it was interesting to see what a judge and three lawyers on Fox had to say about much of what was going on. Judge Shapiro (SP?) pointed out that they didn't need to warn the suspect because they already had clear, over-whelming evidence of the suspect's crime. Statements given after his arrest were to be used to determine if there were other terrorists to worry about; not to go to his prosecution.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

As far as being read his Miranda Warning, I thought that it was interesting to see what a judge and three lawyers on Fox had to say about much of what was going on. Judge Shapiro (SP?) pointed out that they didn't need to warn the suspect because they already had clear, over-whelming evidence of the suspect's crime. Statements given after his arrest were to be used to determine if there were other terrorists to worry about; not to go to his prosecution.[/quote]

I wonder if that doesn't present a scary precedent, basically saying that due process can be thrown out at the discretion of the authorities whenever they deem it necessary for the public good. I thought I heard it reported that this suspect actually had received citizenship, Im curious what repercussions the handling of this could have in future cases.

[E4 No More]

I wonder if that doesn't present a scary precedent, basically saying that due process can be thrown out at the discretion of the authorities whenever they deem it necessary for the public good. I thought I heard it reported that this suspect actually had received citizenship, Im curious what repercussions the handling of this could have in future cases.

A judge is who deems it necessary; not the police. One of the first things that the judge does is to determine what is lawful evidence and what is not. It is after the fact because the judge is obviously absent at the time of the arrest, but judicial review certainly happens. "Fruit of The Poisonous Tree" throws out any evidence gathered after a point that the judge detrmines something unlawful occurred. Remember, the Miranda Warning is to advise the suspect that he doesn't have to talk to the police because anything he/she says can be used against them and thus incriminate themselves FURTHER. Every criminal attorney that I've met has agreed that they wished that their clients would just shut up. There are various subtle things taking place that determines if the statement was gained lawfully. I was instructed that anytime a LEO's questioning turned accusatory in nature that the person must be read their Miranda Warning at that point for any further statements to be used against them. In this case they didn't need any further evidence, and the need to ensure the public safety from terrorists out-weighed the need for further evidence.

[npgunner]

... the need to ensure the public safety from terrorists out-weighed the need for further evidence.

We all so vehemently disagree with this logic when applied to the need for increased gun control, but seem so quick (if not hypocritical) with its application to Miranda and unlawful searches of these Bostonian's homes.  Those of us espousing the Constitution and declaring it be "law of the land" need to remember that the Constitution is a collection of (for now) 27 amendments that create 1 document.  If we set aside one amendment to protect more so than others; we are no better than those who try to squash the one amendment (2A) we care about, while protecting some of the others (1A). 

[RobertNashville]

We all so vehemently disagree with this logic when applied to the need for increased gun control, but seem so quick (if not hypocritical) with its application to Miranda and unlawful searches of these Bostonian's homes.  Those of us espousing the Constitution and declaring it be "law of the land" need to remember that the Constitution is a collection of (for now) 27 amendments that create 1 document.  If we set aside one amendment to protect more so than others; we are no better than those who try to squash the one amendment (2A) we care about, while protecting some of the others (1A).

What's so sacred about "Miranda rights"? That concept didn't even exist until the Supreme Court created it in 1966 and all it really does it tell people the rights they have and have had under the Constitution all along.

No one is setting aside the fourth or any other amendment...there are circumstances where police have the right to search you/your home/your property without your permission and without a search warrant. You have the right to not give consent if that makes you feel better but the search will happen if the police feel they need to do so. Maybe much later when they have weeks to look at decisions made in moments some judge will decide the police were in the wrong - that's how it's supposed to work isn't it? Edited April 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Miranda only applies to anything that is said after it is read to the accused, doesn't it? His acts and the evidence

already against him have nothing to do with whether or not Miranda was read, unless I am missing something.

[E4 No More]

Miranda only applies to anything that is said after it is read to the accused, doesn't it? His acts and the evidence

already against him have nothing to do with whether or not Miranda was read, unless I am missing something.

Correct. If a person spontaneously confesses then too bad for them. If they run their mouth after the warning then too bad for them. If they invoke their right to remain silent and the LEO asks further questions about the crime then too bad for the LEO. This is where it can get tricky: if you, as a LEO and without the warning given, were to ask someone, "Do you know who killed that person?" and they say that they did it then too bad for them, but if you say "You killed this person, didn't you?" and they say that they did then too bad for the LEO.

[DaveTN]

Miranda only applies to anything that is said after it is read to the accused, doesn't it? His acts and the evidence

already against him have nothing to do with whether or not Miranda was read, unless I am missing something.

Yes, only actually it applies after the person becomes a suspect, whether read or not. If the Officer has no intentions of using what the suspect says in court against him; he doesn’t have to Mirandize him.

 

I use to pick people up on warrants. Many times I had no details of the offense other than the charge on the warrant. I didn’t advise them of their rights; I booked them into jail and left the rights part of it to whoever was going to question them. Some of them would extremely upset in the booking process because I hadn’t read them their rights. Even after I explained to them that I wasn’t going to ask them anything about the crime they were accused of; some still didn’t get it. Many times just to shut them up I would read them their rights.

 

There have been court rulings that if it can be shown the person knew what their Miranda rights were, and then claimed they had made statements without being read their rights; the statements will be allowed. For example; I couldn’t claim that I didn’t know what my rights were when I made a statement. If someone on the forum committed a crime and his attorney tried to say he made statements without knowing his rights, and it can be shown he gave a dissertation on the forum about knowing your rights; the statements would more than likely be allowed, depending on the Judge.

 

It was done as a protection for people that didn’t know they didn’t have to answer questions by the Police. Most people today know they have a right to remain silent…. Very few can be silent.

[Oh Shoot]

...Most people today know they have a right to remain silent…. Very few can be silent.

 

As Ron White puts it, "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability." :)

[Old Man]

From the video I saw, they were not giving anyone an option to refuse.  The residents were brought out at gun point, hands above their heads, and made to go down the street where other officers were waiting to search them.