Banner Logo
The Real Kato
About Me
Frozen Lunches
Sweat Pants Mom
Secret Agent Josephine

Most Recent

2019 July
2009 January
2008 December
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 August
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February

All Categories 


Recent Comments
On College Football 2018: The End
Dan* said:
I canít believe the regular season is over already.

I love your remarks on fandom. Whenever I can, ...
On College Football 2018 Week 11 Preview
Dan* said:
Hey Ken, thank you for the Penn State coverage this year! I tried to comment earlier but the captcha...
On New CBS Show Scorpion Riddled with Errors
e.* said:
also, 7a: disk-based backup targets don't work that way. you don't back up anything to one single so...
On New CBS Show Scorpion Riddled with Errors
Stephen J* said:
Wasn't planning on watching, now definitely won't.

19a: if the whole Ethernet cord to sportscar th...
On College Football 2013: Week 10 Preview
Ken said:
Update: Bryan Underwood is out with an injury. Umm, that's not good.

<< Previous: Macworld Eve | Next: No New Mac Desktops ... >>

You Have the Right to Remain Silent
Monday, 2009 January 5 - 9:49 pm
I'm generally fascinated by Constitutional law issues. I regularly read a blog called SCOTUS Blog, and today they listed several cases up for certiorari. The one that I'm particularly interested in is Illinois v. Lopez.

In the case, a 15-year old kid was taken to a police station for questioning in a homicide case. He was not placed under arrest when taken in, but there's some question whether he (and his terrified mother) actually understood that he was not obligated to comply with the armed detectives' directives to accompany them to the police station. While at the police station, he was placed in a room and questioned, then left in the room with the door closed for four hours; the door was not locked, but he was told to knock if he needed to use the bathroom or if he needed anything to eat or drink. This made him believe that he was locked in and not free to leave.

While sitting in the room, one of his friends implicated him in the crime. The kid was informed of this fact, and he subsequently made an oral confession. He was then read his Miranda rights, and shortly thereafter, he signed a handwritten confession. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime; the primary evidence presented at trial was his own written confession. All parties agreed that the oral confession was not admissible as evidence, since it came before the Miranda warnings.

I won't go all into the legal issues involved, but the key one in this case seems to be this: did the police deliberately try to skirt the Miranda requirement by questioning the kid while he wasn't technically under arrest? In a previous ruling in Missouri v. Seibert, the Supreme Court specifically disallowed the procedure of questioning a suspect until obtaining a confession, then quickly reading the Miranda rights and repeating the question as a way to deliberately skirt the spirit of the Miranda process. The Illinois Supreme Court thought that that precedent applied here, and they overturned the kid's conviction (PDF file).

I find this interesting because I've always thought that there was a big grey area in the law surrounding Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and police often take advantage of that. They'll ask someone who's pulled over for a minor traffic offense, "Can I look inside your vehicle?" If the person says "yes", then that's a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. Or they'll sit a 15-year-old kid in an interrogation room until he "volunteers" a confession. But if people were better educated about their own rights, they wouldn't fall for these tricks.

It's a tough issue, because on the one hand, of course we want police to be able to outwit criminals who aren't smart enough to avoid incriminating themselves. But on the other hand, there's a fine line between that and coercive police techniques to induce a confession. I think one thing would help avoid these sort of issues: when police are questioning someone who is not under arrest or detention, they should specifically be required to say: "You are free to leave if you choose." I think a lot of people simply assume they're required to do whatever a police officer asks, and that seems like a situation just ripe for abuse.
Permalink   Bookmark and Share
Posted by Ken in: commentary


There are no comments on this article.

Comments are closed for this post.

Search This Site
Powered by FreeFind