BluesStringer
Les Brers
Yep, I deleted a post similar (though not exactly) to that maybe 10 - 20 minutes after posting it. I am "pretty sure" that any reason you have kickin' around in your head gives me the full benefit of the doubt that it was deleted in good faith so that I could review case law to make sure I was on solid ground, right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Whatever. Don't quit your day-job. You're neither a mind-reader about my reason for deleting that post, nor are you particularly adept at reading your own citations.
Bergheim V Thompkins docket # 08-1470 SCOTUS
The very first line in that ruling says, "After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 , Detective Helgert and another Michigan officer interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died."
Everything that follows in that ruling is scrutinizing the invocation of one's rights after Miranda warnings were issued, and after the question was posed to the subject/suspect whether or not he understood his rights as-stated. Additionally, that case hinged on an interrogation that was being recorded with identities of everyone in the room put on the recording for fully legal use in court at a later date since Miranda warnings had already been given and understanding asserted by the suspect. More from the ruling:
Thompkins had been given his Miranda warnings, said he understood them and then spoke to his interrogators in spite of them. Therefore, his claim of having been coerced into waiving his rights could not stand.
Ms. Mussara was asked a question on the side of the road before even knowing the nature of the stop. She was not being interrogated, she was being given the chance by the cop to volunteer information that could be used against her, and then arrested on a trumped up obstruction charge because she refused to answer any questions. She was decidedly coerced to waive her right to remain silent before the name Miranda ever entered the picture, and her "interrogation" at the station after being arrested consisted of the cop's superior reviewing the video, assuring her that the cop would receive extra training and cutting her loose!
You should read the citation you linked to. Oh.... wait.... scratch that. You didn't link to it, I did. You obviously just read something that said Thompkins never invoked his right to remain silent and took off runnin' with that. The actual ruling that I linked to makes it quite obvious that the side of the road on a traffic stop before Miranda warnings are given and understood by the subject/suspect, is not where Bergheim v. Thompkins is applicable.
Next.
Blues
