Alex Jones Show - November 28, 2002


20021128_Scheidegger_Alex


Episode Stats


Length

9 minutes

Words per minute

186.08076

Word count

1,836

Sentence count

128

Harmful content

Misogyny

1

sentences flagged

Hate speech

1

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

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?

Transcript

Transcripts from "Alex Jones Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Taking a hold while I was ranting.
00:00:02.000 Legal director.
00:00:04.000 Is he there, Mark?
00:00:05.000 Down here.
00:00:05.000 Oh, fantastic.
00:00:07.000 Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
00:00:08.000 I remember Reno wanted to get rid of Miranda. 0.97
00:00:10.000 Now Lord Bush is doing it.
00:00:12.000 Tell us about your group and what's happening with these key cases you're involved in.
00:00:15.000 Well, no, this case doesn't involve getting rid of Miranda.
00:00:18.000 That was the Dickerson case, and the Supreme Court kept the Miranda rule.
00:00:22.000 So the Miranda rule itself... Well, I know Reno said that she wanted to get rid of it four years ago, but I was reading over the case.
00:00:29.000 You're the lawyer, but it looks like it definitely impedes it.
00:00:31.000 Well, tell us about it.
00:00:32.000 Well, the Miranda rule as such just deals with what confessions and what statements are admissible and evidence at a criminal trial.
00:00:40.000 So 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.
00:00:50.000 But if they get rid of that, that is, in effect, getting rid of Miranda.
00:00:53.000 Right, but they're not going to get rid of that, and that's not what this case is about.
00:00:56.000 This 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.
00:01:04.000 And the Miranda Rule never has created that kind of civil lawsuit.
00:01:09.000 The Miranda Rule is just a limit on the evidence that can be admitted at trial.
00:01:14.000 In a criminal case.
00:01:16.000 That's the important distinction that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got wrong in this case.
00:01:24.000 So, this is obviously important.
00:01:26.000 Why is it important?
00:01:28.000 Well, 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.
00:01:42.000 And neither should the police departments be sued, because they haven't committed any offense.
00:01:46.000 They may have gathered some evidence that is not admissible in a criminal trial, but they have not violated any law.
00:01:54.000 So, you are... So, in this suit, you're actually on the side of the government then?
00:02:01.000 I'm on the side of the police officer, yes.
00:02:04.000 What do you think about...
00:02:07.000 How 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.
00:02:17.000 Yeah, if they stop everybody and search the car without probable cause, that would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
00:02:24.000 Did 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?
00:02:34.000 Well, that was the Dickerson case, and actually, the Clinton Justice Department supported the defendant in that case.
00:02:40.000 I'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.
00:02:58.000 That was all over the news.
00:02:59.000 What, about four or five years ago?
00:03:00.000 You don't remember that?
00:03:02.000 Well, 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.
00:03:14.000 And 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.
00:03:24.000 Do 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.
00:03:32.000 Did you hear that?
00:03:34.000 Well, I know that there was the Ruby Ridge controversy.
00:03:37.000 I'm not familiar with an argument in the 11th Circuit.
00:03:40.000 Well, he did say that.
00:03:41.000 It 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.
00:03:57.000 And out in Los Angeles, they just threw out the Rampart case, so we're not going to charge these people.
00:04:02.000 But here you are saying, oh, officers could be sued.
00:04:05.000 Where do you stand on that?
00:04:06.000 I mean, obviously officers can be sued, and if it's a policy, cities can be sued when they do violate constitutional rights.
00:04:13.000 So who are you representing in this case?
00:04:15.000 We're just a friend of the court.
00:04:17.000 We're not representing anyone but ourselves.
00:04:20.000 Explain that, friend of the court.
00:04:23.000 The parties file their briefs, one on behalf of the police officer, one on behalf of the plaintiff, the person who was arrested.
00:04:29.000 Then 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.
00:04:42.000 And that's what we've done in this case.
00:04:43.000 And this is a U.S.
00:04:44.000 Supreme Court civil rights case, Chavez v. Martinez?
00:04:48.000 That's correct.
00:04:49.000 Now, I'm trying to understand this here.
00:04:51.000 You're saying it doesn't get rid of Miranda, but Copson will be able to violate Miranda and not be held personally accountable.
00:04:59.000 Well, the word violate there, I think, is the heart of the controversy, okay?
00:05:04.000 If 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.
00:05:11.000 Let me give you an example, sir.
00:05:15.000 I'm trying to understand this, Kent.
00:05:17.000 I've had cops pull me over at a checkpoint.
00:05:19.000 They got, you know, 50 other cars pulled over.
00:05:21.000 Obvious Fourth Amendment violating checkpoint.
00:05:25.000 They walk over.
00:05:25.000 They land in the car.
00:05:27.000 They got a little bitty black microphone on their tie.
00:05:30.000 Those citizens don't even know that.
00:05:31.000 It's connected to a wireless camera in the squad car.
00:05:35.000 And they start going, so what's going on with guns and drugs in here?
00:05:38.000 And they start trying to get me to incriminate myself.
00:05:40.000 And I'll say, you know what?
00:05:42.000 You're violating my Miranda.
00:05:43.000 I'm under arrest.
00:05:44.000 You've stopped me here.
00:05:45.000 This is really false imprisonment.
00:05:47.000 You've got a microphone on me right now.
00:05:48.000 I mean, this really is illegal wireless bugging.
00:05:53.000 Nobody 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.
00:06:04.000 I 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.
00:06:08.000 Well, 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.
00:06:20.000 But how does, I mean... You've got to issue a proof there.
00:06:22.000 I mean, you've got to prove it.
00:06:23.000 Has it been challenged, though, that they've been using for five years these tie microphones?
00:06:31.000 I haven't heard that one come up.
00:06:33.000 Certainly you're aware that's being done.
00:06:36.000 Well, like I said, I have not heard that come up in a court case.
00:06:40.000 But, I mean, you're certainly involved in these type of cases.
00:06:43.000 I mean, certainly you know state police universally have these now in many local departments.
00:06:49.000 Well, 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.
00:06:54.000 Wouldn'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.
00:07:08.000 Well, if they use it in a criminal prosecution, then you could have a Miranda violation.
00:07:13.000 But 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.
00:07:27.000 What's the website for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation?
00:07:30.000 It's www.cjlf.org.
00:07:34.000 And where do you see this case going in the future at the Supreme Court?
00:07:38.000 I expect that they're going to reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and send the case back.
00:07:43.000 And the judgment of the Ninth Circuit was that you can go after police as being liable for this?
00:07:47.000 Yes.
00:07:49.000 How do you think?
00:07:50.000 Well, I mean, Rehnquist, did you hear about his little meeting outside D.C.
00:07:54.000 with over 100 federal judges saying that they need to go ahead and violate the Constitution?
00:07:58.000 You hear about that?
00:08:00.000 I'd be very surprised if he said they can go ahead and violate the Constitution.
00:08:03.000 Oh, he did.
00:08:04.000 It was in the Associated Press.
00:08:05.000 His actual quotes were, we're at war.
00:08:06.000 You 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.
00:08:19.000 That is clearly going on.
00:08:24.000 I 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.
00:08:31.000 But, why not hold the police liable?
00:08:35.000 If they really do violate the Constitution, yes, they're liable.
00:08:38.000 Now, how does case law work?
00:08:39.000 Because I hear it discussed both ways.
00:08:43.000 This particular case, will this affect all Miranda where they gather information for prosecution improperly, or will it just be with this one case?
00:08:53.000 It will not affect all Miranda.
00:08:54.000 It will not change at all the rules of evidence that Miranda has traditionally concerned about what's introducible as evidence in a criminal case.
00:09:03.000 It will affect cases where people bring a civil lawsuit against the police on a similar theory.
00:09:10.000 Well, I have to tell you, sir, that I hope that you guys lose this case.
00:09:15.000 I hope the Supreme Court doesn't reverse this, but I'm sure you're right.
00:09:21.000 Recent rulings, I mean, they arrested a woman outside Austin, a block from her house, because her kids weren't in seatbelts.
00:09:26.000 It's not an arrestable offense, but, listen, cops can arrest you for any reason, anytime, anytime they want to.
00:09:32.000 And I think all this is wrong and stinks to high heaven.
00:09:34.000 The 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.
00:09:41.000 Um, Kent, I appreciate you taking time out to join us.
00:09:44.000 Alright, you're welcome.
00:09:45.000 Take care, and have fun in the New World Order. 0.69
00:09:48.000 Alright, there he goes, ladies and gentlemen.
00:09:52.000 Oh no!