The Supreme Court has reaffirmed Miranda (via Glenn Reynolds) with a nine-to-zero vote.
There’s no word about concurrences,* but I’m frankly surprised that at least one conservative justice didn’t peel away from the pack. Although the Miranda warnings have infiltrated US popular culture, they’re really not part of the Constitution. Indeed, the Miranda Court itself suggested that communities might be able to opt-out of the Miranda warnings, so long as they replaced those warnings with other, equivalent measures. (What form those measures could take, it didn’t say.)
UPDATE: A federal District Judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.
The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds’ campaign for self-determination in Turkey.
The judge’s ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.
The decision on the Patriot Act seems about right to me. (As for the Supreme Court’s decision, well, I’ve never been particularly fond of Miranda . . . .)
*Many times, a concurrence reads like a dissent that’s given up hope.
(Title from “Poncho and Lefty,” by Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard.)
Please! “Pancho and Lefty” is by Townes Van Zandt, and he sings it on his album of a few years back.
I think anyone who has ever seen a cop show on television should be precluded from claiming that they weren’t Mirandized. Ha ha.
Seriously, though, given the way that Miranda has wormed its way through the culture, I would think that police could be held to a somewhat less strict standard than they are today. Everyone should be apprised of their rights, but I don’t think failure to Mirandize should be a dealbreaker on confessions or convictions.
Joseph Wambaugh once observed that the main effect of Miranda, et al., was to make generations of cops better liars (and that any competent cop with a dead average intellect could outmaneuver the greatest minds on the bench). Insofar as the deception in question is aimed at keeping hyper-technical nonsense from setting loose clearly guilty men, I lose little sleep over it. However, I do believe it’s worth asking whether the dishonesty that it has imported into the system to keep it working without opening the prison doors on a wholesale basis has corrupted the police and made them less picky about more substantive violations of procedure–such as manufacture of evidence. I hope not.
Joseph Wambaugh once observed that the main effect of Miranda, et al., was to make generations of cops better liars (and that any competent cop with a dead average intellect could outmaneuver the greatest minds on the bench).
I agree, M. Scott — I, too, have a real concern whether Miranda simply induces cops to shade the truth. Of course, the same concern applies to every Constitutional guarantee: We trust cops to be honest, whether they’re testifying as to Miranda, or probable cause, or the circumstances of confession (after the suspect has been Mirandarized), et al.*
That said, I’ve heard different stories from different police officers. One Chief told me that he thought that Miranda made cops under his jurisdiction more professional, because it re-enforced the notion that they could act only according to certain circumscribed rules. Another (retired) chief (to whom I’m related) thought the exact opposite. Law professors, and other alleged experts, are all over the map — and it doesn’t split neatly into “left” verses “right” debate.
As for myself, I think that the impetus behind the Miranda decision — some prophylatic measure should exist to dissuade coercive confessions and other shennanigans — is sound. I’m just not convinced that the Miranda rulings are the way to go. Videotaping confessions (as Chicago has started to do) may be a better route.
(I’m not ready to go so far as Phil, though. If the Government breaks the rules, it must pay the price — particularly since cops are largely immunized from civil claims for Constitutional violations.** There’s no room for a sliding scale.)
As for Anewc2‘s complaint: For me, “Pancho and Lefty” will always mean Merle Haggard and Willie Nelson. I’m willing to accept some dissent, though.
von
*Truth is the foundation of the system. Scary, yes — and also a reason to treat perjury seriously. (As much as I liked Clinton and disliked the Republican witch-hunt, his lies were a big deal.)
**There’s a rather famous Harvard professor who suggests that we should dispense with Miranda and let innocent accusees sue for Consitutional violations. First name Amir — the last name escapes me. Katherine may know.
If I may correct myself: From the album cover, Nelson’s definitely cast himself in the Pancho role.
Yet another pop culture event that makes me tear up, by the by. (How could you, Lefty?) When will it end . . . . ?