From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid   
      
   In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   > Miranda is a hell of a lot more than that. It forced the police to   
   > acknowledge to both themselves and the detainee that the questioning   
   > is taking place in custody, it's not voluntary, and the detainee is   
   > not free to leave. None of this blurry line nonsense that the   
   > individual isn't free to leave but not formally in custody and   
   > rights at arrest therefore don't apply.   
      
   And yet police still blur those lines (free to leave / detained) all   
   the time and are not really held to account for it ... because it   
   really has nothing to do with Miranda or even Dickerson.   
      
   > It's a practical decision regardless of whether the Constitution is tue   
   > basis for it and it's judicial activism. The cops fucked around way too   
   > much prior to Miranda.   
      
   No argument there; inventing "rights" that just complicate matters is   
   not the solution. Holding the police to a "bright line" standard and   
   holding them accountable is. The Warren Court was just lazy and   
   cowardly.   
      
   > Let's see. Gideon was 1963; Miranda was 1966. I looked it up. But   
   > Katz, an unlawful search case and therefore about privacy rights   
   > before arrest, wasn't until 1967, so no, the Warren Court wasn't   
   > finished with recognizing rights in interactions with police.   
      
   I'd say that Terry is more important than any of those. (As a bonus,   
   it's actually based on the Constitution!) I personally consider Hiibel   
   to be *much* more important than any of those. Any cop who's been on   
   the force more than a month knows that when someone invokes that case,   
   he'd better cross every "t" and dot every "i" if he doesn't want the   
   headache and expense of a colorable 1983 suit.   
   --   
   jd   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)