Cook County Judge Says Law Banning Recording Police Is Unconstitutional 152
schwit1 writes "A Cook County judge Friday ruled the state's controversial eavesdropping law unconstitutional. The law makes it a felony offense to make audio recordings of police officers without their consent even when they're performing their public duties. Judge Stanley Sacks, who is assigned to the Criminal Courts Building, found the eavesdropping law unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes 'wholly innocent conduct.' The decision came in the case of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art on a Loop street without a permit. Drew was charged with a felony violation of the eavesdropping law after he used an audio recorder in his pocket to capture his conversations with police during his arrest."
Balancing between privacy and transparency (Score:3, Insightful)
On this internet site people think privacy and transparency can work together. They can, when we work together.
Thank you,
Agent Smitz
deal with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Law enforcement officials need to get in line with the fact that society is going to require them to behave.
Those that can't need to find another line of work.
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't even have to imply anything about their behaviour. In fact since they are the good guys they have nothing to hide, so they should be recordable.
Now, there are corner cases where, say, an undercover cop would be exposed if a film of him in operation is PUBLISHED. But that's another matter. Let first citizen record whatever they want and use it to defend themselves in court. Let them also be responsible of all the damages they indirectly cause if the release of film to the publc damages some cop, which last time I checked is a citizen too and has equal rights).
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Informative)
There are too many cases when something goes wrong the police tape unexpectally cuts out.
Or this one where seven independent police tapes unexpectedly cut out!! [wtop.com]
And police wonder why people are automatically defensive and nervous around them...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't wonder -- they "know" everyone they interact with is guilty. They wouldn't be bothering you if you weren't.
You put a bunch of people in uniforms, charge them with being good guys and catching bad guys, boom! You get a serious "us vs. them" attitude. It's psychologically almost inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
the jury found them guilty - but didn't award much damages
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=1577281 [wtop.com]
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an opportunity for geeks to do something useful here.
What we need is a device with a video camera and microphone. Once the "record" button is depressed, it records and automatically uploads everything it captures to an off-site server that is secured w/ encryption. Moreover, it doesn't stop recording until a code is entered (to prevent a cop from tampering with it). With the cheapness of electronics nowadays we could probably create something like this for less than a hundred bucks (fees for transmission notwithstanding).
Or maybe just an iPhone/Android app...
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Informative)
Half there: http://www.ustream.tv/everywhere/android [ustream.tv]
Just need to add in encryption and keycode for application of the "stop" button.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, skip those other steps and just drop it in a Faraday bag.
I own one. It works remarkably well. It cost less than $3, shipped, from China to the US.
Every officer should have one.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody cares. The cops do nasty stuff on camera all the time. Unless large parts of a city are set afire as a result, no one really cares. Most people know the cops are thugs in general, and will tell you so. But if anything specific actually happens, they'll blame the victim. Judges accept the cop's word over anything but an unambiguous recordings -- and often over those as well. Even when the cop's statements are demonstrably untrue. They can't not know the cops often lie; they are complicit in it.
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more to it than that.
They believe they are the good guys who are fighting an unequal battle against the bad guys. As a result, they come to believe that whatever they need to do to catch those bad-guys is reasonable and required.
So they do bad things, and still believe they are good guys.
Plus, they naturally sympathise with their good-guy friends who probably had reason to do those things which might sound bad. They're good guys, so there must be a reasonable explanation.
Re:deal with it (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh, probably not what you meant to say, but absolutely the truth.
A cop doesn't have to be "on the take" to be a bad cop. He can be a brutal and violent thug with utter disregard for the rights of citizens or the truth without taking a single bribe.
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Or he can be absolutely clean in his interactions with the public, but still have knowledge of this kind of stuff going on while turning a blind eye to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And if not blatantly criminally sadistic fascists or behaving otherwise illegally, what bothers me in everyday dealings with cops or guards or bouncers is their bullying attitude.
It doesn't apply to all of them, of course, and even the asshole ones may behave nicely to people that look like upstanding members of the community on the right side of legality.
But asshole behaviour is too widespread.
They could enforce their rules calmly, respectfully and courteously, but they don't. They enjoy giving their trea
No Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Police" will just join the RIAA and then sue people on the angle that they recorded their performance.
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Funny)
The Police [wikipedia.org] have been covered by the RIAA since the 1970s...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FTFY
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks Sting. Although, there's no reason to post anonymously. We all know you're a member in good standing of /..
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be a "+1, Terrifying" mod option.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Police" will just join the RIAA and then sue people on the angle that they recorded their performance.
Hopefully taxpayer-funded "performances" can't be restrictively copyrighted...
Hello, context here (Score:5, Interesting)
The law attempted to prevent audio or video recording anyone without their consent [arstechnica.com], not just police.
Of course - of course - it was abused by Illinois' finest, but that wasn't really who it was intended to protect.
Re:Hello, context here (Score:5, Insightful)
> The law attempted to prevent audio or video recording anyone without their consent [arstechnica.com], not just police.
IMHO, here lies the problem.
See, Stuart the man has a right about his privacy as anyone else -- but Officer Stuart has not.
People take different roles and live through corresponding different contexts. A Law Officer must be transparent at all times; while I will certainly not want to be nitpicky about how many post-its he uses, I certainly want his use of the gun monitored. A Police Officer has a public job and as such, he is accountable.
Re:Hello, context here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hello, context here (Score:4, Insightful)
Good idea. That way Officer Stuart can wait to beat me up after his shift is over and then arrest me for taping the incident without his consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hello, context here (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem that nobody seems to want to talk about is I, Bystander B is watching and recording the police dealing with Citizen A. Citizen A is very loudly disclaiming that he had anything whatsoever to do with Woman W, who is also standing by the police clearly accusing Citizen A of doing something nasty and wanting the police to "do something about it".
I take my recording home and realize Citizen A just recently had their picture in the news as some supposedly upstanding person. I now have easy blackmail material or can simply sell my recording to the same news organizations for a tidy profit.
It doesn't matter what Citizen A was or was not doing - their public life will be filled with innuendo and snarky comments. If they happen to be married, that might be over now as well. Just having a recording of someone interacting with the police is grounds for termination from any number of public-facing jobs. So with one recording you get to destroy someone's entire life.
Now, if you are Citizen A and making the recording yourself that is a whole different matter. But what the public wants and news organizations will pay for is Bystander B's recording. Today in most jurisdictions attempting to do something like this openly will get you a trip to the jail and your recording device confiscated - you might get it back if you apply in person and pay the $50 fine. Or you might not. You can assume that if these laws are unconstitutional and go unenforced anyone with a life they value will just run from any interaction with the police for fear of it being recorded and used against them.
Sure, the right attitude is that if there is no conviction there is no crime. But that isn't how things work today. If you are publiclly arrested and questioned about rape or child molestation you can figure it will get out and your life is over - no matter if they have the wrong person or not. Having a recording of some school principal getting a traffic ticket when they were complaining about student drivers is going to be lots of fun for people. So this could really stack up to be quite entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course - of course - it was abused by Illinois' finest, but that wasn't really who it was intended to protect.
There is no evidence of such in the law. Therefore you are simply being a cheerleader. Are you an employee of the state of Florida?
Re:Hello, context here (Score:4, Insightful)
And actually, I completely agree with the need for such "wiretapping" laws, even in a public space.
However, the point to focus on is whether the individual being recorded has an expectation of privacy.
The problem in this situation is that the law in Chicago states that consent is the only situation where the expectation of privacy is waived. Which is of course, ridiculous.
You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Police just love it when they record suspects and will use other sources of recordings besides those given with consent against suspects. Those suspects should also have the right to use recordings in their defense. If you ban recordings, then the ban should be on both sides. That would mean every dashboard mounted camera should be removed from all those police cars if this law was allowed to stand.
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
hate to break it to you, but the cops that don't want the public recording them would be just fine not having dash cams in their own cars too.
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Informative)
Lawyers for McCarren say she was investigating possible misuse of government resources and following a county official when she and her cameraman were pulled over by seven police cars. The official had called police about a suspicious vehicle.
McCarren says police dislocated her shoulder and tore her rotator cuff in the incident. Neither she nor her cameraman, Peter Hakel, was ever charged with any violations.
[...]
Questions still remain unanswered as to why police were unable to produce video of the incident from their cameras.
Prince George's County Police vehicles are required to have dashboard video cameras operating as part of an understanding with the U.S. Department of Justice reached in 2004.
Police have denied repeated media outlet requests to review the video.
At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
McCarren says police dislocated her shoulder and tore her rotator cuff in the incident. Neither she nor her cameraman, Peter Hakel, was ever charged with any violations.
That's strange. I'm not a lawyer so I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, if a cop physically harms you but does not charge you with resisting arrest, he is effectively admitting he assaulted you for no reason.
At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.
Ever heard of a contract of adhesion? It's when a big entity like your insurance company draws up a standard contract. You have little or no ability to negotiate the wording or terms of the contract. It's a take-it-or-leave-it deal. The flip side is that any unclear or unspecified terms in that contract are automatically interpreted in your favor.
We need a concept like that for police and their "broken" dashboard cameras. If the cameras are faulty or footage is missing, it is assumed that whatever story the citizen tells is the correct one. Overnight, police departments would suddenly start doing a better job maintaining their "faulty" equipment.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I am not a lawyer either, but generally speaking police are protected for their behavior if it is done in good faith in the course of their duties. That's pretty clearly the case here: Somebody called the police about a suspicious vehicle and they stopped it and detained the pass
Re: (Score:2)
No fan of the po-po here. But use some skeptical thinking. The individual "said" she had a dislocated shoulder and a torn rotator cuff. I see no mention of her visiting a hospital.
Still, if a cop's camera is inoperative, he should be charged with dereliction of duty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you noticed that whenever you see anyone say "turn that camera off" you can sense a deep underlying fear in them?
There scared cause there conscious isn't clear
That is not entirely true. I have seen times where someone has been saying "turn that camera off" because they know that the person (or the organization behind the person) cannot be trusted to present what is recorded in context. As an example, someone says, "When he said, 'I don't have to do obey the law.' I told him that he did indeed." Some untrustworthy sources have cut that to show that someone saying, "I don't have to obey the law."
However, you are correct that most of the time when someone says "tur
Interesting grounds... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all in favor of the result of this decision, but this makes no sense: "... unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes 'wholly innocent conduct."
Isn't it the very purpose of criminal law to criminalize what would otherwise be innocent conduct? What law wouldn't be stuck down by this reasoning?
I'd love to RTFA to find out more, but there's NO LINK. Source please?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the judge's intent was that with this law, a convenience store owner could be arrested and charged with a felony because a policeman walked in to his convenience store and his cameras caught it on tape.
Re:Interesting grounds... (Score:4, Informative)
What law wouldn't be stuck down by this reasoning?
Anything that is a malum in se offense, for starters. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary... these are not innocent conduct.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the meaning of innocent. If there was no law against murder, murder would be "wholly innocent conduct" in the eyes of the law.
If you take innocent in a less legal sense (as clearly intended), there are still a great many laws where "innocent conduct" - not intending any harm or perceiving the possible commission of a crime - is nonetheless illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he meant "innocent" in the not-breaking-the-law sense, but more in the "not against the reasonable moral rules of society" innocent. .... he's saying the law was way too broadly worded and was picking up people who were doing reasonable things the law wasn't supposed to cover.
We have LOTS of laws that criminalize innocent activity even in the "reasonable moral rules of society" sense. Is there anything in the Constitution that actually forbids such laws? Perhaps there should be, but IS there?
Ninth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there anything in the Constitution that actually forbids such laws?
You mean other than the Ninth Amendment, which clarifies that people have other rights that happen not to be listed in the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires due process and equal protection from the several states?
Re: (Score:3)
There's definitely no violation of the Fourteenth. You can have due process and equal protection even with an unjust law. You do something unintentionally, they haul you in, the facts are evaluated by a jury, and the judge sentences you. Due process is given.
I think the Ninth is greatly underappreciated, but at present it's pretty well established that unfair laws and laws with collateral damage are still valid laws. What right do you think applies in this case? Is there any case history for it?
Specifically? I'd say the First (Score:3)
What right do you think applies in this case?
I imagine that the right to record in a public place is implicit in the First Amendment right to free expression. Practical free expression requires the ability to back up your assertions with evidence, be it original research or citations, and recording is one way of collecting evidence. And because political speech is historically the most thoroughly protected kind of free speech, this would include collecting evidence about abuses perpetrated by the executive branch of the government.
Is there any case history for it?
Sorry. I'm not a law
Honestly! (Score:2)
It's sad this was required... (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's sad that we're here to cheer about something that should have been the status quo in the first place.
The law never should made it illegal to record the police. I suspect this is mostly a law designed to protect slippery government officials from getting snagged by whistle blowers.
I any case... it's disgusting this ever was law in the first place.
The police cannot be a legitimate servant of the law or the people so long as such laws remain on the books. They are entirely and manifestly unacceptable.
Re:It's sad this was required... (Score:4, Informative)
Its a law designed to prevent me from recording you without your permission. Its written to prevent citizens from recording other citizens without permission, what happened however is that the cops tried to claim that it was illegal to record them because they are also citizens. While this is true, when operating in the capacity of a public servant, some exceptions must be made to protect the public from abuse.
This is simply a case of the police manipulating a law intended to protect you, that was poorly written (well, they found an obvious loophole at the least) and taken advantage of by corrupt police.
If you actually look at the court case, the judge also really doesn't have a problem with the spirit of the law, its just implemented and used in a way that he feels isn't allowed for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As I understand it, the laws were originally written to protect corrupt politicians. Corrupt cops are just a bonus.
My friends a cop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops love to be dicks. Trust me.
They dont want to be recorded because it would force them to behave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My friends a cop... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cops aren't universally dicks. In Wisconsin, we had one write himself a ticket [wisn.com] for a driving infraction.
That said, when seven dashboard cameras "fail" just in time to assault someone's rotator cuff, you can't give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Police are PUBLIC SERVANTS (Score:5, Informative)
By virtue of their PUBLIC presence they pretty much surrender any expectation of privacy while they wear the uniform. EVERYTHING they do and say is and should be subject to public scrutiny; if this requires the midstep of recording them for use later, then so be it.
In the UK the Data Protection Act 1998 [legislation.gov.uk] reflects this in section 36, thus:
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."
This has been used to (successfully) argue that audio recording anywhere outside a situation where Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 [legislation.gov.uk] comes into play (ie anywhere outside a military installation) for personal purposes, including legal (which falls within the definition in section 36) is *legally* permitted. Police officers walking on a public right of way does not fall into the category of military installation, therefore does not fall into the purview of OSA, therefore in this respect recording (audio or video) of police officers is legal.
Of course, that doesn't prevent them from threatening you with arrest under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] (been there), which funnily enough only grants an authority to stop and search for terrorism-related paraphernalia. Which last time I looked, didn't extend to camera equipment.
IAAL.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Police are PUBLIC SERVANTS (Score:4, Interesting)
you could throw it back - I've done this and the police have backed down: if one gets in your face, right into your personal space, and starts threatening you, make him a promise of making a citizens arrest for armed trespass!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Police are PUBLIC SERVANTS (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the stupidest thing that I have ever read. Never threaten violence against a policeman. Ever. That is how morons die. It is also against the law in many states.
Re: (Score:2)
The parent said arrest, not violence. While I agree that taking this attitude against a police officer is ill-advised, it's not the same as threatening one with physical harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops are trained to escalate their level of violence so that it is always one level above the level of violence presented by their contact.
Either you are going to back down, or you are going to escalate right along with the cop. If you escalate right along with the cop, you risk jail and physical harm.
If the cop is messing with you, gather your witnesses and sue his ass later. When you mess with the cop on scene you are like a fool giving away his money at a casino.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll lose and waste your time and harm yourself trying; this comes into the category of "wrestling with a pig". If a cop is messing with you, you can resist RIGHT THEN, and at least ruin his day, probably at the cost of your freedom or your life. Or you can submit. Talking about giving in then while somehow suing later is just assuaging your shame for surrendering; it isn't going to happen: ask any lawyer about your chances.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about "giving in." I'm talking about not escalating in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
no, what you do is walk away. If he persists, then you affect a citizen's arrest, in front of witnesses. If he continues after that then you have the right to defend yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
If (and it's a big if) there is a felony committed in your presence, you may effect a citizen's arrest. This arrest power is not limited to who may be arrested. By virtue of a cop swaggeringly believing he's above the law and therefore untouchable, he will resist arrest. If you draw down on him, the fact that you were required to use lethal force will be taken into consideration and may even exonerate you.
I would strongly advise never to personally test this, though the US Supreme Court has ruled that a
Re: (Score:2)
At no point did I advocate violence against a police officer. What I said was "make him a promise of making a citizens arrest for armed trespass". When someone gets into your personal space (ie within 18 inches of your face and in a threatening manner), and they wear enforcement paraphernalia (ie cosh, mace, gun, bracelets), *that* is armed trespass. At that point, considering and making the assumption that you have not committed an arrestable offence up to that point, you have the LAWFUL RIGHT to do two th
Re: (Score:3)
Bad police?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Every single one. Those who don't help the victims and look away for what reason ever, are in no way better.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course cameras are terrorism related - you're obviously planning on filming the execution of your hostages.
Re: (Score:2)
"Prayer, Mister Saavik. Klingons don't take prisoners."
- Kirk
this really needs a federal law (Score:4, Insightful)
The short of this is that we need a federal law (or supreme court decision) that specifically makes recording of law enforcement officers performing their duties in public places legal. Full stop. No restrictions or loopholes.
The problem we're fighting is there's too much abuse of power and lack of outside accountability within most law enforcement groups. (sorry, an "internal investigation" leaves much doubt as to the impartialness of the findings) Recordings have been used over and over again to change the course of internal investigations that were attempting to (or had already) neatly sweep things under the rug and "failed to find any evidence of misconduct". The need for these recordings has been demonstrated so many times, and I don't recall a single incident of the recordings being challenged for any reason other than an attempt to cover up or retaliate. They have NO reasonable or lawful basis to deny this law. Law has no expectation of privacy while performing their duty in public, that should be obvious to all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In general state courts in the United States are bound to apply both state and federal law (as are federal courts). IAAL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Appeal! (And I can tell you that, as an empirical matter, this almost never happens.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha. Yeah, you may be right. Chicago or West Virginia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'd completely disagree with that. I want to see the NSA, FBI, and every other federal LEA be encompassed by this sort of legislation. This isn't a matter of "we do things different in Texas" etc. Transparency of law enforcement SHOULD be a constitutional right, there's no reason for ANY state in the union to have a plausible reason not to get on
Ok, so lets get if off the books (Score:3)
A lot of arm waving unfortunately does not accomplish much unless followed up with something to turn the law around. Wake me up when there's something to vote on.
Wholly innocent conduct. (Score:2)
Smoking marijuana is wholly innocent conduct. Can we get that one declared unconstitutional too?
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense! Smoking marijuana is well known to lead to "Satanic music, jazz and swing". [wikipedia.org]
Good. Next up: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Is that what you'd say if you were a police officer just trying to do your job?
"You really need to resist this. I don't care how much damage you do to the car or myself."
Re: (Score:3)
The other problem I have with it is the license it gives cops when you're resisting. Say you're on
Re: (Score:2)
Bizarre legislative history (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Senator Millner, at the time in 1994 it was actually a class 4 felony for police officers to leave their dashboard cameras running. (pdf, @ page 32 http://goo.gl/sJlf7 [goo.gl])
Going back further, the original motivation for the committee that started drafting the bill in 1975 seems to track back to then Senator Partee's mention of a report from the IL State Comptroller which claimed that there were a number of electronic eavesdropping devices unauthorized by any court around and within the State Capitol (pdf page 9 http://goo.gl/vssR9 [goo.gl].) The outrageous abuse of this law to prevent police accountability certainly doesn't seem to have been the original intention of the bill at any point down the line, at least from the legislative material I've seen.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stanley+Sacks+%2B+Christopher+Drew [lmgtfy.com]
Re:Link to Article Please (Score:5, Informative)
Ars is covering it...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars [arstechnica.com] ...with lots of nice links.
Re:Link to Article Please (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, here is a particularly interesting one (don't get distracted by the filename)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/if-you-pull-out-your.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, GP is bang on.
ANYTHING which requires a licence to be LEGAL
MUST be fundamentally LAWFUL.
Car analogy:
Does not possessing a driving license physically prevent you from driving a motorised vehicle skilfully and safely? Of course not. That is entirely down to training, experience, temperament and habit.
Does possession of a driving license physically protect you in any way shape or form from any sort of incident while behind the wheel? No.
Does possession of a license indemnify you legally in any way? N
Re: (Score:2)
Does not possessing a driving license physically prevent you from driving a motorised vehicle skilfully and safely? Of course not. That is entirely down to training, experience, temperament and habit.
[...]
What is the purpose of a driving license? To identify you as the operator of a motorised vehicle and as a permission slip to use the public highways.
[...]
There are some activities that are inherently hazardous (eg driving, shooting), for which there is not a *legal* requirement but more one of common sense; that you are insured against incidents.
Yeah well, in my country, the driving license guarantees that the driver has passed the driving test (and so has some basic driving skills, training, experience and habits) and is thus less likely to be a hazardous driver.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state it means he is over 14 and has $12.
Re: (Score:2)
Rimshot!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Miranda warning (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a courtesy for the ignorant. It's a requirement. Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights. If they do not, any information gained from that interrogation, and any information following from it, will likely be excluded.
Re: (Score:3)
Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights.
Absolutely correct, sir! It is required only when you are in a custodial setting.
HOWEVER, any answers you give to ANY police questioning AT ANY TIME also will be used against you and there is no requirement for them to Mirandize you.
That is why you must ALWAYS seriously consider whether or not to answer ANY questions by police, even during a traffic stop, for example.
Two things to remember:
1) You can't talk yourself out of trouble, but you can certainly talk yourself into it; and,
2) All cops will
Re: (Score:2)
The cops don't have to read it to you in order to detain you. Or arrest you. But they do have to read it prior to questioning you. The government attempted to say "it's on TV, everyone knows it, so we don't have to say it." SCOTUS said "BS."