I didn’t see this one coming 🥺

The Biden administration was behind this one.

It’s not exactly what people think.

It simply means that you can’t sue cops for not giving you your Miranda Warnings.

You can still suppress a custodial confession given without them at trial.

That said, most states, including TX, have CODIFIED the provisions of Miranda into either their penal code or code of criminal procedure.

We have it in our code of criminal procedure.

I’ve had confessions suppressed at trial simply because the dumbass cop forget the tell them the last part of the TX Miranda Warning: you have the right to terminate this interview at any time.

As it turns out, I still won that trial and got that sorry credit card skimmer 5 years in the pen because I had so much other evidence, but losing that total confession hurt.



Sounds wrong headed and I don’t care if Biden supported it’s demise or not.

If anything , it had the unspoken aspect of helping police understand their
role in the justice system, keeping things more cool and level headed, in
an already emotional and sometimes physical arrest. But from this
court expect radical positions and undermining of what made this country great.
Dark days ahead.

Fair enough. Seemed worth clarifying to me.

Meh… dark days are ahead anyway because of cultural rot. This just keeps people from using a technicality to sue cops.

Is that the only thing you see here ? If I understood correctly,
this could lead to just ignoring issuing the warning at all, never mind current
Texas laws.

I’m okay if it prevents the occasionally sueing of an officer for failing to warn.
But is cop being sued individually or the department in these cases you are talking
about ?

Like Law said, it doesn’t affect the accused ability to supress because the law still requires it. In fact it’ll probably result in incrementally more people getting off because that’s gonna be the first thing even a public defender checks. No Miranda? Hmmm…Your Honor, I’d like to…

Is that not done today?

Yes. But if cops get too relaxed they’re going to lose a lot of cases over it. It is still the law. The ruling just prevents lawsuits over the reading. If the cop doesn’t do it he’ll lose his case. If the cop hits the perp he still gets sued.

Gotcha, makes sense.

1 Like

Just between us city folks I think defense attorneys are salivating over this.

Yeah, I can see that.

Law, any thoughts? You’re on the other side of this one.

No, it can’t. You understood WRONG!!!

It’s like the people that took Thomas’ concurrence, which is NOT the governing law, and used that as bogus “alarmism” to falsely claim that everything else under the sun is now at risk from a decision which Alito stated in his controlling opinion is strictly confined to abortion while distinguishing it from all those other issues.

I promise you that in TX, if even one part of the multi-part TX Miranda warning is omitted, then that custodial confession is NOT getting into evidence at trial. The cops still have to give you those warnings if they expect to use your statement against you.

Trust me on this. I have both academic/professional training…and PRACTICAL experience in these matters.

At a national level, this case did NOT overturn the requirement for cops to provide a Miranda Warning prior to custodial interrogation. Anything you heard online to that effect is FALSE.

It simply prevents you from being able to sue a cop because they don’t give you the warning.

The case resulted from a sheriff’s deputy who was sued for not giving them.

US Supreme Court shields police from ‘Miranda’ lawsuits | Courts News | Al Jazeera.

Can you respond in a respectful tone without yelling ?

And please define “ prevents you from being able to sue a cop ”.
Is it an individual or department?

1 Like

I’d like to, but the Left has put out such deliberate lies with respect to that decision, that it sort of gets my blood boiling.

My apologies.

People don’t seem to understand that this case didn’t abrogate the Miranda requirement for custodial confessions.

It simply held that the Miranda warnings don’t constitute a constitutional right that you can then sue for a violation of if they aren’t provided.

Not sure how the alternate incorrect narrative got started.

1 Like

In this case it was an individual Sheriff’s Deputy that got sued by a Defendant for not giving him his Miranda Warnings.

That’s crap.

So you can assume, based on that, that the ruling covers individuals and everyone else up the chain.

I assume everyone knows they can remain silent. It’s a meme, a frequent punch line to jokes, part of a zillion TV shows and movies. The only reason to give the Miranda warning is that someone being arrested may not be thinking clearly, but to pretend people don’t know is ridiculous. It doesn’t interfere with due process.

Actually, it’s not criminal defense attorneys that had an interest in this ruling.

Rather, it’s plaintiff’s civil lawyers that did.

Had this case been decided the other way, those plaintiff’s lawyers would have been sitting on a GOLD MINE of possible lawsuits against law enforcement, etc.

It doesn’t affect criminal defense attorneys at all. They are still able to file a Motion to Suppress Evidence to suppress custodial confessions given without Miranda Warnings, and will usually win.