(via Adrian Wojnarowski on ESPN)
News: In case some of you have forgotten, please go back and read the agreement you signed before registering on this board. Continuous attacks on an individual, including revealing who you think a person is or sending Private Messages with threats and attacks, are grounds for removal from the registration listing. If you can't be civil, go someplace else. Don't discredit your education by showing your "thug" personality.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
To understand what today’s case is about, you need to understand how Miranda warnings work. If a suspect receives the warnings, the suspect’s statements can be used in court when the suspect is prosecuted. However, if the police do not “Mirandize” the suspect, generally the suspect’s statements can not be used against them in court, making it more difficult to prosecute the suspect.Not like it really stopped them anyway but at least you would get paid. At the end of the day this is just going to amp up the animals even more to violate your rights.
That part of Miranda remains unchanged. However, there was another part of Miranda that was obliterated in Thursday’s ruling. The other way to hold police accountable and make sure they follow the law is to sue them in federal court. Such lawsuits, under a federal law called section 1983, allow people whose constitutional rights have been violated to sue the state officials who violate them and receive money as a result.
The case decided Thursday, Vega v. Tekoh, ruled that Miranda rights are actually not technically constitutional rights but rather merely a prophylactic constitutional rule. Thus, although a suspect can still prevent their statement from being used in court after today’s ruling, now people can’t sue the police for failing to provide this warning.