August 7, 2022

Dismantling the Constitution: Police No Longer Have to Honor the Right to Remain Silent

By shielding police from lawsuits arising from their failure in order to Mirandize suspects, the Great Court has sent a message to police that they no more have to respect a suspect’s right to remain silent.

“ That was when they suspended the particular Constitution. They said it would be short-term. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. Individuals stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an foe you could put your little finger on. ” — Margaret Atwood,   The Handmaid’s Tale

We are witnessing the progressive dismantling of every constitutional theory that serves as a bulwark against government tyranny, overreach and abuse.

As usual, the latest strike comes from the U. S. Supreme Court.

In a  6-3 ruling in  Vega v. Tekoh , the Supreme Court had taken aim at the Miranda warnings, which require that law enforcement inform suspects that they have a right against self-incrimination when within police custody: namely, they have a right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and that everything they say and do can and you will be used against them in a court of law.

Although the Supreme Court ceased short of overturning its 1966 ruling in  Miranda v. Arizona , the  conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold law enforcement accountable for violating their 5th Amendment right to remain quiet .

By shielding police from legal cases arising from their failure in order to Mirandize suspects, the Best Court has sent a note to police that they no more have to respect a suspect’s right to remain silent.

In other words, concludes lawful analyst Nick Sibilla, “ the Supreme Court has effectively created  a brand new legal immunity for police   accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. ”

Why is this important?

In totality, the rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment talk to the Founders’ determination to protect the rights of the individual towards a government with a organic inclination towards corruption, tyranny and thuggery.

The Founders were specifically concerned with balancing the scales of justice in such a way the fact that innocent and the accused were not railroaded and browbeaten simply by government agents into coerced confessions, false convictions, or sham trials.  

Indeed, so established were the Founders to guard the rights of the innocent, even if it meant allowing a guilty person to visit free, that Benjamin Franklin insisted, “ It is better hundreds of guilty persons should escape than one innocent individual should suffer. ”

Two hundred-plus years later, the Supreme Courtroom (aided and abetted by police state, Congress plus Corporate America) has turned that longstanding presumption associated with innocence on its mind.

In our present suspect society, “ we the people” are all presumed guilty until proven blameless.

With the  Vega   ruling, we have even fewer defenses for warding off govt chicanery, abuse, threats and entrapment.

To be clear, the Supreme Courtroom is not saying that we you do not have the right to remain silent whenever in police custody. Really merely saying that we can not sue the police for violating that right.

It’s a subtle difference yet a significant one that could well encourage police to engage in the very sort of  egregious misconduct at the heart of the  Vega   case : in which a police officer investigating a sexual attack isolated a suspect in a small, windowless room; refused your pet access to a lawyer or function colleagues; accused him associated with molesting a female patient; threatened him with violence; intended that he and his family will be deported; and terrorized your pet into signing a fake confession dictated by the police officer.

Although Terence Tekoh was eventually attempted and acquitted, the  Supreme Court refused to keep police accountable for browbeating an innocent man into creating a false confession .

The  Vega  ruling threatens to turn the clocks back to a time when police resorted in order to physical brutality (beating, dangling, whipping) and mental torture in order to obtain confessions through suspects without ever informing them of their Fifth Amendment rights.

It was exactly the kind of misconduct the Warren Court sought in order to discourage with its 5-4 judgment in  Miranda sixth is v. Arizona .

As the Court  came to the conclusion   in  Miranda  almost 60 years ago:

The prosecution may not make use of statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant except if it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Simply by custodial interrogation, we indicate questioning initiated by law adjustment officers after a person continues to be taken into custody or else deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safe guards to be employed, unless some other fully effective means are usually devised to inform accused persons of their right of quiet and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following steps are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain quiet, that any statement this individual does make may be used because evidence against him, which he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either maintained or appointed. The accused may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly plus intelligently. If, however , he indicates in any manner with any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there may be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone plus indicates in any manner which he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question your pet. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some claims on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from responding to any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be wondered.

The outcome as one analyst notes: “ Miranda v. Arizona , in creating the ‘ Miranda Rights’ all of us take for granted today,   reconciled the increasing police powers of the state using the basic rights of individuals . ”

By largely doing away with  Miranda , the particular Supreme Court has made its present position clear: everything goes if you’re a cop in the American police condition.

Indeed, pay out close to attention to the Court’s rulings lately, and the wider picture that emerges is of a judiciary that is actively playing fast and loose with the rule of law, selecting and choose which legal rights to uphold and which may be discarded, in order to expand the power of the police state on the expense of the people’s rights.

If remaining unchecked, this constitutionally illiterate ruling will open the doorway to a new era associated with police abuses.

By shielding police from charges of grave wrong doings while throwing the guide at Americans for violating any of a rapidly expanding assortment of so-called crimes, the federal government has created a world in which you will find two sets of laws: one set for the govt and its gun-toting agents, and another set for you plus me.

If you’re a cop in the American police state, you can currently break the law in a myriad of ways without suffering any major, long-term consequences.

Indeed, not only are cops protected from many charges of wrongdoing— be it shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people),   raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports , trafficking medications, or soliciting sex along with minors— but even within the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they  get re-hired again .

For instance, police officer Jackie Neal was accused of placing his hands inside a female’s panties, lifting up the girl shirt and feeling her breasts during a routine traffic stop. He remained for the police force. A year later, Neal was accused of electronically penetrating another woman. Nevertheless,   he wasn’t fired   or disciplined.

A couple of years after that, Neal— then offering as supervisor of the department’s youth program— was suspended for three days for having intercourse with a teenage girl participating in the program. As  Reuters   reports, “ Neal never lost a dime in spend or a day off patrol : The union contract allowed him to assist the suspension using holiday days. ”

Later that same season, Neal was arrested on charges that he handcuffed a female in the rear seat associated with his police vehicle then raped her. He had been eventually fined $5, 000 and sentenced to fourteen months in prison, along with five months off with regard to “ work and education and learning. ” The taxpayers of San Antonio got saddled with  $500, 500 to settle the case .

Now here’s the particular kicker: when the local city council attempted to amend the authorities union contract to create greater accountability for police misconduct, the  police unions flexed their muscles   and engaged in this type of heated propaganda campaign how the city backed down.

This is how perverse justice in America has become, and it’s happening all across the country.

Incredibly, while our own constitutional protections against government violations continue to be dismantled, a growing number of states are adopting  Police force Officers’ Bill of Legal rights   (LEOBoR)— written by police unions— which provides law enforcement officers accused of a crime along with special due process legal rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

In other words, the  LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are usually treated during criminal investigations : questioned unmercifully all day on end, harassed, harangued, browbeaten, denied food, water and bathroom breaks, subjected to aggressive interrogations, and left at nighttime about our accusers and any charges and evidence against us.

These LEOBoRs epitomize everything that is wrong with The united states today.

Now every so often, police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for mistreating their authority and using extreme force against American citizens. From time to time, those officers are actually sentenced for their crimes contrary to the citizenry.

However in just about every situation, it’s still the United states taxpayer who foots the bill.

The  ones who seldom ever feel the pinch would be the officers   offender or convicted of wrongdoing, “ even if they are self-disciplined or terminated by their division, criminally prosecuted, or even locked up. ”  

In fact , police officers are  more likely to be struck simply by lightning   compared to be held financially responsible for their actions.

No matter which way you spin and rewrite it, “ we the people” are always on the losing end of the deal.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling in  Vega v. Tekoh , the scales of justice possess shifted out of balance a lot more.

Brace yourselves: as I make clear in my book  Battlefield The united states: The War on the United states People   and in its fictional counterpart  The Erik Blair Diaries , things are about to obtain downright ugly.


The Crucial Difference Between Fall of Sri Lanka as well as the Dutch Uprising

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *