![]() ![]() Shatzer was serving time for child sexual abuse. Thus, the detectives did not violate Thompkin’s Miranda rights when they continued to question him for several hours, even though he was generally unresponsive and uncooperative.Ģ. “After giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his or her Miranda rights.” “Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused’s un-coerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.” The confession itself could be seen as a waiver and the confession was admissible. Moreover, the Court held that Thompkins waived his Miranda rights by giving a one-word answer to the detectives. “Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police.” It is not enough to sit silently or remain uncooperative throughout an interrogation. In a 5-4 split decision, the Court held that a suspect who wants to invoke his right to silence must affirmatively say so. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and held that there was no Miranda violation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the detective’s failure to obtain an explicit waiver of Miranda rights from Thompkins rendered the answers inadmissible. Shortly after that statement, the interrogation ended. “Yes,” replied Thompkins as he looked away. The detective then asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” One of the detectives asked Thompkins whether he believed in God. It was generally a one-sided interrogation. They questioned him for nearly three hours, with Thompkins saying nothing during most of the time. Detectives gave Thompkins a Miranda warning, which Thompkins appeared to understand. Thompkins was arrested for murder, assault and weapons charges. Gant rule, questioning during traffic stops, and liability for canine use.ġ. Notable federal appellate cases included discussions of electronic control device use, limitations on the Arizona v. Rounding out the Supreme Court cases is the second of the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions, McDonald v. Next up is the Supreme Court’s first decision addressing public employees’ electronic communications privacy rights in City of Ontario v. Well, 2010 was another year of steady course for the United States Supreme Court, with law enforcement interests generally supported in the Court’s trio of Miranda cases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |