If you're stupid enough to chat with the cops other than "am I being detained, am I free to go, I don't consent to a search, I'd like to have my lawyer present," then no lawyer can save your ass.
Cops aren't required to "Mirandize" you until you are 1) in custody AND 2) they question you.
If you're not in custody and freely chatting with police they are under no obligation to "read you your rights". None. Never have been.
SCOTUS made the correct ruling.
e;
Also this case wasn't about a police officer it was about his liability in which case obviously he's not liable for anything. The defendent in the criminal proceedings was found not guilty so nothing was actually lost due to anything happening or not happening due to the cop.
>If you're stupid enough to chat with the cops other than "am I being detained, am I free to go, I don't consent to a search, I'd like to have my lawyer present," then no lawyer can save your ass.
Cops aren't required to "Mirandize" you until you are 1) in custody AND 2) they question you.
If you're not in custody and freely chatting with police they are under no obligation to "read you your rights". None. Never have been.
SCOTUS made the correct ruling.
e;
Also this case wasn't about a police officer it was about his liability in which case obviously he's not liable for anything. The defendent in the criminal proceedings was found not guilty so nothing was actually lost due to anything happening or not happening due to the cop.
(post is archived)