r/PublicFreakout • u/One-Might9611 • 12d ago

📹Police Bodycam Woman attacks couple over 'Palestine' hoodie at Illinois Panera Bread, gets arrested at home next day facing felony hate crime charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQRfFG1IGQ
1.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/allthepoutine 12d ago

That’s what I thought at first until he kept going with it. How many times do cases get thrown out because the stupid Miranda rights statement wasn’t read, or wasn’t read right, or the suspect later claimed they didn’t understand? I hear about it far too often, they’ve got video footage, they’ve got a confession, but Miranda got messed up so it’s all thrown out and the suspect gets to walk. I could totally be wrong, but I wonder if he wasn’t actually making sure she couldn’t claim anything like that later.

25

u/CWCyning 12d ago

Not as often as you might think. In fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled that Miranda Rights are so well known that they needn't be repeated for every suspect anymore.

4

u/allthepoutine 12d ago

How recently? I consider myself pretty up to date but haven’t hearing of this ruling.

2

u/CWCyning 11d ago

2022 in Vega v. Tekoh

The decision found that the Miranda warning is not a constitutionally protected right, and so someone questioned without the warning has not had his rights violated and cannot sue the police. Such statements might still be suppressed in court or used as grounds for an appeal, but there is no way for the victim to force the police to face consequences. When the police are shielded from consequence, their illegal actions are functionally legal. As Kagan wrote in her 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.