Reply #12: More info here [View All]

[Caution]

and for once I have to agree with the conservatiove side of the court. I can't believe i agree with a dissent which includes Scalia and Thomas but I do this time.

basically the court is saying that cops have to be careful about two-step interrogations, if they get a confession without miranda and then give miranda rights and then ask the suspect to repeat the confession, they must do so and be able to prove that they weren't specifically trying to avoid the miranda ruling.

the idea i guess would be for people who gush out a confession before a cop has a chance to read the rights.

this is very shaky ground here, because it leaves things open to abuse and basically becomes a question of the cops word. How do you proive the cop didnt intend to do a two step interrogation and thus undermine miranda?

<snip>
Kennedy said that police must be able to prove that the interrogation was not done "in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning."

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) said it would be tough for lower courts to determine if officers had gone too far. She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites).


"In virtually every two-state interrogation case ... courts will be forced to conduct the kind of difficult, state-of-mind inquiry that we normally take pains to avoid," she wrote.
<snip>

link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_miranda