Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning

[wizer]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police, under certain circumstances, can initiate an interrogation of a suspect without the defendant's lawyer being present.

By a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority overruled a 23-year-old Supreme Court decision that barred the police from initiating questioning after a defendant asserted the right to an attorney at an arraignment or similar proceeding.

The 1986 decision held that once a defendant invoked the right to counsel, only the suspect, and not the police, can initiate the contact.

The ruling was the latest in a recent string by conservative justices expanding the power of police to question suspects, but it does not change the landmark 1966 ruling barring the police from questioning a suspect who invoked the right to remain silent or have a lawyer present.

The decision was a defeat for Jesse Jay Montejo, a Louisiana death row inmate. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a dry-cleaning operator during a robbery in 2002.

He initially waived his right to a lawyer and was questioned by the police. He told several conflicting stories. Several days later, he appeared in court for a preliminary hearing and a local judge appointed a lawyer to represent Montejo, who could not afford an attorney.

Later that day, police investigators approached Montejo in prison and he again waived his right to a lawyer.

But Montejo later claimed the police had violated his constitutional right to counsel by interrogating him without his lawyer being present and pressuring him to write a letter confessing and apologizing to the victim's wife. That letter was later introduced as evidence against him at his trial.

The Louisiana Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Montejo's appeal.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said there was little if any chance a defendant will be badgered into waiving the right to have counsel present during police-initiated questioning.

In overruling the 1986 decision, Scalia said, "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present."

Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the 1986 decision, disagreed.

In dissent, Stevens said the dubious benefits of overruling the decision are far outweighed by damage to the rule of law and the integrity of the constitutional right to an attorney.

[Fine Point]

More fallout from 11th September.  That single act, brilliant by whomever did it, changed America permanently -- and not for the better in my opinion.  Now it's safety first.  Hitler who understood better than anyone the profound impact of a surgically targeted terrorist operation says it best. 

The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

And this.

Terrorism is the best political weapon
for nothing drives people harder
than a fear of sudden death.

[wizer]

More fallout from 11th September.  That single act, brilliant by whomever did it, changed America permanently -- and not for the better in my opinion.  Now it's safety first.  Hitler who understood better than anyone the profound impact of a surgically targeted terrorist operation says it best. 

And this.

Well..it seems to me that there are just so many loopholes that the Constitution provides to the criminal element that they can take advantage of and get away with so many things.

Now they have one less loophole. I don't mind giving up that bit of privacy.

But thats just me.

[Fine Point]

Dig deeper wizer if you're interested. 

This is less about criminals and more about the average person. 

One other point, the larger the crime (see Hitler quotes) the less likely it is the criminal will be apprehended and charged in the the first place.  Think of unjust and senseless wars, companies raiding employees' retirement accounts (outright stealing on a grand scale), and lying on a scale that is so outrageous it is believed.

Puts it into perspective for me.  Don't be stupid and kill one person with your own hands, kills thousands by barking an order (also refer to Head Mafia bosses and the contortions it takes to prosecute them).  Don't break into someone's home and take their television, lure the person into a scheme where they willingly hand you thousands or even millions.  You're much more likely to get away with it and never come to the attention of the authorities. 

Ehhhhhhhh... I think I'm ranting now.