Inside prison I’m constantly reading cases where the defendants lose
because they couldn’t keep their big fuckin’ mouths shut, either before
or after the much-vaunted Miranda warning. Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).
Based on the 5th Amendment to the U.S. constitution, Miranda extends our
well-known, seemingly little-used, right to remain silent, as in “I’ll
take the fifth,” outside the courtroom. In other words, ya’l can’t be
compeled to incriminate yourselves during police investigations in which
“your freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way…” Id. at
467. This used to be interpreted by the courts to mean that upon arrest
you must be given the Miranda warning, or else anything you said, or
resulted from what you said, must be suppressed, that is none of your
unwarned statements, or evidence resulting from them, can be used
against you at trial.
However, not so much anymore. Back in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court
radically limited Miranda when it held that the failure by police to
give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical
fruits of an arrested suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements. It
seems, the dummy, errr suspect, voluntarily told the police the gun they
found was his before the warning and his conviction stands. United
States v Patane, 542 US 630 (2004); also, Hibel v
Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 US 960 (2004)
(defendant’s conviction for refusal to identify self did not violate his
5th Amendment right against self-incrimination).
That ain’t all folks, as the Supremes have been chipping away at Miranda
for years, mostly by narrowing the definition of what constitutes an
arrest or being in custody. Maybe it’s just me, but when I’m surrounded
by armed thugs I just know I’m under arrest and in custody!
Unfortunately, that ain’t necessarily how the U.S. Supreme Court sees
it, as it has repeatedly found that not every violation of Miranda
requires suppression of the evidence. See Harris v New
York, 401 US 222 (1971); New York Quarles, 467 US
649 (1984); and Oregon v Elstad, 470 US 298 (1985).
This trend was emphasized when the court held that a California state
appellate court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal
law (i.e. Miranda) by finding non-custodial status, given the
debatability of status. Yarborough v Alvardo, 541 US
652 (2004); Cf., Fellers v United States, 540 US 519
(2003) (police violated 6th Amendment by deliberately eliciting
information from defendant, during post-indictment visit to his home to
arrest him, absent counsel or waiver of counsel, regardless of whether
officers’ conduct constituted an “interrogation”); Missouri v
Seibert, 542 US 600 (2004) (Miranda warnings given
mid-interrogation, after defendant gave unwarned confession, were
ineffective, and thus confession repeated after warnings were given was
inadmissible at trial.)
No doubt, it is a “settled principle” that “the police have the right to
request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved
crimes,” but “they have no right to compel them to answer.”
Davis v Mississippi, 394 US 721, 727, n. 6 (1969).
Therefore, ya’ll have to quit volunteering to incriminate yourselves and
others. Also, you tattletales (i.e., snitches, informants, etc.) should
know that when you do incriminate others to get out of your shit, then
you more often than not incriminate yourself. It al boils down to this:
When encountering the police, or any other armed terrorist enforcers of
the state, just shut the fuck up.
