From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   But if one is questioned while in custody and not free to leave, that's   
   when the warning applies.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   I'm not sure what you are getting at. "Seize" is in the Constitution,   
   but the word in and of itself doesn't describe the bright line and   
   therefore when rights at arrest are in play.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   Hiibel gives me rights? Terry is the decision in which the cop must have   
   "reasonable suspicion" and have "articulable facts" that the person   
   being stopped but not seized is connected to a crime.   
      
   Hiibel doesn't apply unless I'm in a state that reuires me to identify   
   myself, and if that identification in and of itself is self   
   incriminating, uh, they never ruled on how I might avoid the conflict.   
      
   A state law forcing me to identify myself where Terry applies isn't   
   unconstitutional. I don't see what Hiibel does for me beyond that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)