U.S. Supreme Court protects police from 'Miranda' lawsuits

SCOTUS got this one right.

His remedy for the theoretical violation was having the evidence tossed. He is a free man despite having admitted to a crime.

Miranda warning are issued subsequent to ARREST. He was not under arrest, which means he was speaking to them willingly, and could have walked away any time he wanted. Yet he chose to talk to police and admit a crime.

Your rights are not violated when you VOLUNTEER information. If a cop asks to search and you consent, it is not a violation of 4A to search without warrant..

Likewise, if a cop asks a random person who is not under arrest if they committed a crime and that person VOLUNTEERS the info, it is not a violation of 5A. That person has the ability to say "I don't want to talk to you," and walk away.

They only serve their interests. They don't have to protect anyone unless they want to. Ultimately they get to pick and choose who they protect if they protect at all. We need reform.

I have mixed feelings on this one. I have no problem protecting the police from liability surrounding Miranda - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. However, I have never been comfortable with aggressive officers who stretch the limits of a suspect's 5th Amend rights. Terence Tekoh was probably guilty of sexual assault but was acquitted due to the aggressive nature (5th Amend violation) of the sheriff Carlos Vega. It seems to me they both were guilty and they both got off. Not how I like to see our judicial system work.

People are ignorant and sometimes their own worst enemy. You do not talk to the police if you are suspected of a crime. That is your right under the Constitution and failure to adhere can be costly.