IVAW’s cause of the moment a few years back when he was just a conscientious objector before he was a child pornography purveyor, Army PFC Naser Jason Abdo, who also planned to detonate a bomb in a Killeen, TX restaurant was disappointed this week when the judge refused his motion to toss his confession to the plot because Abdo claims that he wasn’t read his rights before the interview according to the Associated Press;
Another Killeen detective testified that he read Abdo his Miranda rights shortly after placing him in a police car, but said the audio did not record because of a delay and no other officers were present. Bradley talked to Abdo in the police car after that.
C. Michael Owens, an FBI special agent, testified that he read Miranda rights to Abdo twice – before interviews with him on July 27 and 28. Prosecutors showed documents signed by Abdo agreeing to talk to investigators and waiving his rights to an attorney. During the first six-hour interview, Abdo said he was in Killeen to make things right with Allah because he had sinned against Allah, Owens testified.
One of Abdo’s lawyers, Zachary Boyd, also claims that the police had no reason to detain him because he wasn’t acting suspiciously in their presence. Those boys are really reaching.
Properly filed under”Shitbags”!
Ah…yes! I still remember Miranda 101 class at Gordon. This fooking asshat is a prime example of that class too. Yes, MP’s are versed in Miranda…same as civie cops.
You know you shouldn’t need Miranda, but apparently no one ever RTFM on the 5th amendment. Indeed after Miranda’s conviction was tossed (rape) he was caught yet again and convicted yet again. So I’m sorry that bit of law is utter horse shit.
Sorry for the side bar. As for Nasser. What. A. Dumbass. And the Jihadis wonder why we never respect them
Miranda v Arizona (1966):
The concept of “Miranda rights” was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence. (Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted.)
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
…The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.
As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning “read the Miranda warning to” a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).[1]
Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).[2]
On June 1, 2010, in deciding the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the United States Supreme Court declared that criminal defendants who have been read the Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self-incrimination to apply. If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas and by Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissented. Elena Kagan, who had presented the government’s case as Solicitor General of the U.S. and who was nominated to succeed Justice Stevens, supported Kennedy’s ruling in her arguments that pointed out that the ruling spelled out for prosecutors and defendants just how the right against self-incrimination applies in such cases. Those who oppose it state that the requirement that the defendant must speak to indicate his intention to remain silent further erodes the ability of the defendant to stay completely silent about the case. This opposition must be put in context with the second option offered by the majority opinion, which allowed that the defendant had the option of remaining silent, saying: “Had he wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response or unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, ending the interrogation”. Thus having been “Mirandized” a suspect may avow explicitly the invocation of these rights, or, alternatively, simply remain silent. Absent the former “anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law”.
from NOLO:
Many people believe that if they are arrested and not “read their rights,” they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can’t use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial.
Miranda Warnings
Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona), a defendant’s rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by TV police immediately upon arresting a suspect:
You have the right to remain silent.
If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)
When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn’t matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect’s answers as evidence at trial.
If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
Pre-Arrest Questioning
People are often surprised to learn that if a person hasn’t yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court without first providing the Miranda warning.
Responding to Questions Before an Arrest
Does a person have to respond to police questions if he or she hasn’t been arrested? Generally, no. A police officer generally cannot arrest a person simply for failure to respond to questions.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the “right of silence.” This means that unless a police officer has “probable cause” to make an arrest or a “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a “stop and frisk,” a person approached by the police officer has the legal right to refuse to answer questions. Indeed, a person who has reason to believe that he or she is a potential suspect should politely decline to answer questions, at least until after consulting an attorney.
However, there are several exceptions to this rule.
loitering. The “right to silence” rule may not hold true if the officer suspects the person of loitering. Laws in effect in many states generally define loitering as “wandering about from place to place without apparent business, such that the person poses a threat to public safety.” Under these laws, if a police officer sees a person loitering, the officer can demand identification and an explanation of the person’s activities. If the person fails to comply, the officer can arrest the person for loitering.
Traffic stops. Another situation where answers to police questions are usually required is when drivers are stopped for suspected traffic violations. An officer has the right to demand personal identification — usually a driver’s license and the vehicle registration. A driver’s refusal to supply the information elevates the situation to a more serious offense, for which the driver usually can be arrested. The simple refusal to answer questions is not a crime, but the refusal to supply identification, combined with the suspected commission of a traffic offense, is.
Stop and Frisk Searches
A “stop and frisk” is when a police officer stops a person to question them and, for self-protection only, carries out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a “frisk”).
A police officer may stop and frisk a person if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is engaged in criminal activity. This is an easier test for a police officer to meet than the “probable cause” that is required to make an arrest. In one recent U.S. Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant.
When frisking a person for weapons, police may feel a suspicious package that the officer knows is commonly used to carry illegal drugs or some other illegal substance. This suspicion may turn into sufficient cause for a more intensive search of the person’s clothing. And, if a search produces an illegal substance, it may result in an arrest.
Post-Arrest Questioning
The almost-universal advice of defense attorneys is to keep the old mouth tightly shut when being questioned after an arrest, at least until after consulting an attorney. Suspects all too frequently unwittingly reveal information that can later be used as evidence of their guilt.
Consequences of Failure to Provide Miranda Warning
Without a Miranda warning, nothing a person says in response to a custodial questioning can be used as evidence against the person at his or her trial. In addition, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial.
For example, if a suspect tells the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that the suspect provided this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence — unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without the suspect’s statements.
When Police Come Down Too Hard
Information that is voluntarily disclosed to a police officer (after the person has been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial.
The key word is “voluntary.” Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get a suspect to talk to them.
In addition, any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.
Yep – signing a waiver or two pretty much meets the requirement, as this judge reaffirmed.
Miranda Warning
The following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody.
A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following.
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney
But, but, but, don’t ask for ID…
(OWB ducks for cover)
Sorry, was a civ cop for 32 years and also served in an Army MOS where we might have to give an advisement. For the military it’s a lot different than civ law enforcement.
It’s important to understand that all of this only appplies to humans.
So, Abdo voluntarily confessed and judge will allow his voluntary confession to be used as evidence.
I’m just heartbroken to hear that. (smile)