3 ms·

> there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you stil

> there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you still have the right to an attorney. The police still have to stop questioning you when you invoke these rights. Literally the only thing that changed was the notification requirement. That's it.

alistairSH 4y ago
Here's a pretty good summary... https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-reje... Basically, the Court removed any remedy against state actors who fail to uphold your right to remain silent. Prior to Vega, if the state ignored your right to remain silent, you could seek redress with the courts. Post Vega, that right to seek redress no longer exists. On paper we still have the right. But, we have to no way to hold the state accountable when it fails to uphold that right. Is a right really a right if the state can ignore it with impunity?
- ameister14 4y ago
  the state can't use the evidence against you in court, can it?
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    No, it can't. Literally the only thing that changed is that you can't sue a cop for not reading the Miranda warning to you. Your actual Miranda rights are unchanged, and cops still have to read the warning.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      A coerced confession was used during the trial in question.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    It's up to you/your lawyer to ensure it isn't used. Relying on the judge to do so isn't a great plan.
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    Now it can
- jaywalk 4y ago
  The right you keep referring to is the right to be notified of your rights. You are blatantly incorrect in continually stating that there is any change at all in your right to remain silent, or remedies against state actors who violate it. You can still sue a cop who continues questioning you after you have invoked your right to remain silent. Literally nothing about that has changed. The one specific thing that has changed is that you can't sue a cop simply for failing to read you your rights. That does not impact your right to remain silent, or any remedies available in case of violation of it, in any way.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    From the parent post: The constitution doesn't speak about ... miranda rights... Yet those are still "rights" that you'd be awfully horrified to have destroyed, right? And my response: I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday. There is no longer a right to be Mirandized. That's what I said. Officer Vega locked Tekoh in a room and threaten him and his family in order to coerce a confession. That confession was used in the trial. Are you saying there is some other way to recover damages from Vega? At best, had Tekoh been found guilty, he was looking at years of appeals. He still wouldn't have been able to sue Vega under the current ruling. As I said above, yes, you still have the right to remain silence. But you no longer have a way to seek redress against a LEO who ignores that right.

alistairSH 4y ago

Here's a pretty good summary... https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-reje... Basically, the Court removed any remedy against state actors who fail to uphold your right to remain silent. Prior to Vega, if the state ignored your right to remain silent, you could seek redress with the courts. Post Vega, that right to seek redress no longer exists. On paper we still have the right. But, we have to no way to hold the state accountable when it fails to uphold that right. Is a right really a right if the state can ignore it with impunity?

ameister14 4y ago
the state can't use the evidence against you in court, can it?
- jaywalk 4y ago
  No, it can't. Literally the only thing that changed is that you can't sue a cop for not reading the Miranda warning to you. Your actual Miranda rights are unchanged, and cops still have to read the warning.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    A coerced confession was used during the trial in question.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  It's up to you/your lawyer to ensure it isn't used. Relying on the judge to do so isn't a great plan.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Now it can
jaywalk 4y ago
The right you keep referring to is the right to be notified of your rights. You are blatantly incorrect in continually stating that there is any change at all in your right to remain silent, or remedies against state actors who violate it. You can still sue a cop who continues questioning you after you have invoked your right to remain silent. Literally nothing about that has changed. The one specific thing that has changed is that you can't sue a cop simply for failing to read you your rights. That does not impact your right to remain silent, or any remedies available in case of violation of it, in any way.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  From the parent post: The constitution doesn't speak about ... miranda rights... Yet those are still "rights" that you'd be awfully horrified to have destroyed, right? And my response: I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday. There is no longer a right to be Mirandized. That's what I said. Officer Vega locked Tekoh in a room and threaten him and his family in order to coerce a confession. That confession was used in the trial. Are you saying there is some other way to recover damages from Vega? At best, had Tekoh been found guilty, he was looking at years of appeals. He still wouldn't have been able to sue Vega under the current ruling. As I said above, yes, you still have the right to remain silence. But you no longer have a way to seek redress against a LEO who ignores that right.