This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
How would you determine if the Miranda mistake was truly inadvertent?
The officer would testify at a hearing, and a judge would have to determine what was really going on in the officer’s mind at the time. You know, the kind of case-by-case mindreading Miranda was trying to avoid.
I have no idea how often judges find such violations to have been on purpose rather than involuntary. I’d be interested to see if anyone’s gathered any data on it, actually.
“Hey Officer Burney, you’ve forgotten it 738 times in a row. Can you try remembering it next time?” :-)
Unless the cop’s in a very small jurisdiction, where one or two judges are hearing all the cases, how would anyone ever know?
So, in other words, unlimited do-overs without penalty (to the officer), unless officer is being stupid about it. What’s the point in bothering with a rule if no one bothers to do the minimal paperwork needed to show either deliberate abuse, or a memory which is really that poor enough to require retirement?
Wouldn’t defense counsel for a future defendant be able to find the records from an earlier suppression hearing by the same officer?
Y’know, the ruoe is meaningless if they don’t keep track of violations (or “violations”).
I’m surprised YOU aren’t digging into the records; might find yourself with some good ammo.
Ack, ruoe=rule.
We’ve seen that as a common theme. There are all these rules, but they just assume that the cops are going to follow them all. With the way they’re constructed, and the fact there are no penalties whatsoever for breaking most of them, they’re basically guidelines rather than rules. Even the ones backed by exclusion (lame, but more than nothing) have more holes in them than swiss cheese.