3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoFrom 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.