SCOTUS-suspects can't sue officers for self-incriminating statements without Miranda Rights given

[DaleCooper]

Yeah, this case is deceptively not about Miranda Rights at all. It's actually about ensuring that police officers have no accountability.

[DaleCooper]

This SCOTUS is quickly becoming a great thing for the police abolitionists considering how many people are going to be radicalized seeing so many abuses of power.

This is a ticking time bomb that conservatives are not prepared for. Distrust of the police is so incredibly widespread, even amongst conservatives, that once the oldest generations that still have any faith in law enforcement are gone there's not going to be any faith in our police left.

[DaleCooper]

The hit parade of terrible terrific Supreme Court decisions continues.

please tell me how this is "terrific".

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the police must read you a canned statement about shutting up. Miranda frankly was wrong; a long line of bs rulings from the awful 60s and 70s activist SCOTUS. But at least the only effect was that a criminal who said something bad could not be criminally prosecuted. This case involved a criminal not just escaping punishment over lack of a canned statement, but literally suing for money over it. The nerve of trying to profit off that is terrible. I have zero sympathy for some criminal not being allowed to sue a cop for money because the cop didnt deliver a canned statement about shutting up. That is far beyond reasonable in my mind.

I don't know how you can write this and consider yourself to be a good person.

Lmao. I consider this a compliment coming from you.

I don't know man, I think it's pretty reasonable that the government should have to formally tell you what your rights are before placing you into custody. That seems like something that's pretty important in a liberal democracy.

Thats not what miranda did. Miranda requires they give you a canned statement prior to interrogation, not mere arrest and not mere questioning. The definition of interrogation is not clear and keeps shifting. Besides, you could require it by statute. Shoehorning it into the constitution when it isnt there is wrong. And again, this isnt about evidence obtained, this is a lawsuit for money. Criminals shouldnt profit off crime.

This guy isn't a criminal. He was acquitted by a jury. This wasn't even a Bill Cosby-like situation of his conviction being thrown out because of the police not following procedure or whatever-he was acquitted outright.

Then he isnt damaged and failing to hear a canned statement is harmless error.

It's possible that he wouldn't have been put on trial (for a crime that, according to the law, he didn't commit) if the police hadn't violated his rights.