In this episode of the podcast, we discuss the controversial case of a man who wants to sue the police for not complying with the Miranda Rule in a civil lawsuit. The question is, should the police be allowed to question someone without reading them Miranda? Or should they be required to do so in a criminal case?
00:00:32.000Well, the Miranda rule as such just deals with what confessions and what statements are admissible and evidence at a criminal trial.
00:00:40.000So if the police interrogate someone that they have arrested, Without reading the warnings, then any statements he makes cannot be used against him in a criminal prosecution of that person.
00:00:50.000But if they get rid of that, that is, in effect, getting rid of Miranda.
00:00:53.000Right, but they're not going to get rid of that, and that's not what this case is about.
00:00:56.000This case is that the guy wants to be able to sue the police in a civil lawsuit for questioning him without complying with the Miranda Rule.
00:01:04.000And the Miranda Rule never has created that kind of civil lawsuit.
00:01:09.000The Miranda Rule is just a limit on the evidence that can be admitted at trial.
00:01:28.000Well, I think the police officers who question somebody without complying with the Miranda requirements have not violated any law and they should not be personally sued.
00:01:42.000And neither should the police departments be sued, because they haven't committed any offense.
00:01:46.000They may have gathered some evidence that is not admissible in a criminal trial, but they have not violated any law.
00:01:54.000So, you are... So, in this suit, you're actually on the side of the government then?
00:02:01.000I'm on the side of the police officer, yes.
00:02:07.000How they come up to your... I mean, I know this is a separate issue, but you obviously deal with this and want to go ahead and search the car without... at these checkpoints where they stop everybody and want to do it.
00:02:17.000Yeah, if they stop everybody and search the car without probable cause, that would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
00:02:24.000Did you agree with Reno when she wanted to... I'm just going from USA Today... where she blanketly wanted to get rid of Miranda, or where did you stand on that?
00:02:34.000Well, that was the Dickerson case, and actually, the Clinton Justice Department supported the defendant in that case.
00:02:40.000I'm not sure where you get the Reno reference, but... Well, I mean, I've got my film, Police State 2000, the cover, you know, the front page of the USA Today, and the article went over how they said that they wanted to be able to use stuff in court where they hadn't read Miranda.
00:03:02.000Well, the most important case was Dickerson v. United States, and that was a case where there was a 1968 statute that had purported to abrogate Miranda.
00:03:14.000And the Justice Department under President Clinton and the Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, actually argued in favor of the defendant and in favor of the Miranda ruling.
00:03:24.000Do you remember Seth Waxman at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with the whole Ruby Ridge saying that federal officers have a license to kill.
00:03:41.000It seems, Eric, so you don't want... Now, number one, city corporate governments, these creatures that have been created out of all this admiralty law, they claim That they can't be sued, but we all know they can.
00:03:57.000And out in Los Angeles, they just threw out the Rampart case, so we're not going to charge these people.
00:04:02.000But here you are saying, oh, officers could be sued.
00:04:23.000The parties file their briefs, one on behalf of the police officer, one on behalf of the plaintiff, the person who was arrested.
00:04:29.000Then other interested people can come in and file what are called friend of the court briefs to add additional arguments and further explain things that may be helpful to the court in deciding the case.
00:04:42.000And that's what we've done in this case.
00:04:49.000Now, I'm trying to understand this here.
00:04:51.000You're saying it doesn't get rid of Miranda, but Copson will be able to violate Miranda and not be held personally accountable.
00:04:59.000Well, the word violate there, I think, is the heart of the controversy, okay?
00:05:04.000If a policeman gathers evidence in a way that is not admissible in a court of law, that gathering by itself doesn't violate anyone's rights.
00:05:47.000You've got a microphone on me right now.
00:05:48.000I mean, this really is illegal wireless bugging.
00:05:53.000Nobody ever gets in trouble for that, and they're doing it every day, and I know for a fact in court cases I've sat in on, that they're using those videos because these hand-handed lawyers don't even know how to defend their clients.
00:06:04.000I mean, I don't know what they're doing in the law schools, but it's like a bunch of five-year-olds or something.
00:06:08.000Well, you know, the checkpoint issue, there are a lot of issues on the Fourth Amendment, and unreasonable search and seizure, and if you can establish a violation of that, and if it's a matter of police department policy, then yes, the city would be liable for that.
00:06:20.000But how does, I mean... You've got to issue a proof there.
00:06:33.000Certainly you're aware that's being done.
00:06:36.000Well, like I said, I have not heard that come up in a court case.
00:06:40.000But, I mean, you're certainly involved in these type of cases.
00:06:43.000I mean, certainly you know state police universally have these now in many local departments.
00:06:49.000Well, like I said, I'm involved in these cases and I have not... I understand, but I'm trying to get your expert opinion on this.
00:06:54.000Wouldn't that be a violation of Miranda if they, from day one, They're looking for an arrest situation, they got a bug on you, and the microphone right there at the window, that seems like all of that would be inadmissible.
00:07:08.000Well, if they use it in a criminal prosecution, then you could have a Miranda violation.
00:07:13.000But if there's never a criminal prosecution, if there's never a criminal case, then the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply, but the situation you gave me involves a Fourth Amendment violation.
00:07:27.000What's the website for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation?
00:08:06.000You know, this whole war seems to be against the American people, and I would hope that you would not be there defending the government and defending its wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution as a whole.
00:08:24.000I would not violate, I would not defend the violation of the Constitution, but I would defend proper police practice within the bounds of the Constitution.
00:08:39.000Because I hear it discussed both ways.
00:08:43.000This particular case, will this affect all Miranda where they gather information for prosecution improperly, or will it just be with this one case?
00:08:54.000It will not change at all the rules of evidence that Miranda has traditionally concerned about what's introducible as evidence in a criminal case.
00:09:03.000It will affect cases where people bring a civil lawsuit against the police on a similar theory.
00:09:10.000Well, I have to tell you, sir, that I hope that you guys lose this case.
00:09:15.000I hope the Supreme Court doesn't reverse this, but I'm sure you're right.
00:09:21.000Recent rulings, I mean, they arrested a woman outside Austin, a block from her house, because her kids weren't in seatbelts.
00:09:26.000It's not an arrestable offense, but, listen, cops can arrest you for any reason, anytime, anytime they want to.
00:09:32.000And I think all this is wrong and stinks to high heaven.
00:09:34.000The government can't tell me to give up my liberty for security, when history shows all I'll get is tyranny, and our borders are wide open.
00:09:41.000Um, Kent, I appreciate you taking time out to join us.