Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDef
Frazier V. Cupp (1969)
I'll ask just one more time is American civics taught in school anymore?
|
Ha, yes, it is taught law school and undergrad, along with subsequent case law, where I assure one gets it get a much more thorough and correct discussion than a high school civics class. Terrible decision btw, it has left a lot of innocent people in jail and prison, because they naively trusted/beieved law enforcement. Poor, uneducated, juveniles, and immigrants are at risk the most.
Recent case of Vega v. Tekoh was not about "reasonable" police deception with a suspect, it was about miranda rights, illegal interrogation, and ability to sue under Section 1983 when police conduct themselves in such a terrible manner.
With their holding, we now have a country where a individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial, cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights. Denying those whos rights are violated the ability to seek justice under a key civil rights statute, the court has widened the gap between people’s ability to hold law enforcement accountable for violating their constitutional rights. Also, it it removes another deterrent to police misconduct, much like qualified immunity. A major root cause of the problems with law enforcement in the US is majority of cases law enforcement are rarely held accountable for misconduct, even murders. The government protects its soldiers in most cases. and they certainly get far too much leeway and benefit of the doubt.
From Justice Kagan's excellent dissent:
“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”