Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning (illegals, law, conservative)

[antireconquista]

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.

Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning | Reuters



Thank goodness. Because of this ruling, the 287(g) progam can live on!

[New Order]

Originally Posted by antireconquista

Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning | Reuters



Thank goodness. Because of this ruling, the 287(g) progam can live on!

You still have right to have a lawyer present. You don't have to say word until your lawyer is there.

[jjwebbster]

Originally Posted by New Order

You still have right to have a lawyer present. You don't have to say word until your lawyer is there.

If you illegal, you are NOT LEGAL. They can deport you at any time. Why should you have rights in a country you broke into ?

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by jjwebbster

If you illegal, you are NOT LEGAL. They can deport you at any time. Why should you have rights in a country you broke into ?

Good question and at the very least why should you have the same rights as those who entered legally. There should be a penalty for criminal behavior.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by New Order

You still have right to have a lawyer present. You don't have to say word until your lawyer is there.

Cool, straight to a retention center then by default It will make it easier for the deportation.

Ba bye!!

[Kellem]

Originally Posted by jjwebbster

If you illegal, you are NOT LEGAL. They can deport you at any time. Why should you have rights in a country you broke into ?

Well, anyone who breaks any law have the same rights, why should illegals be any different?

[afoigrokerkok]

I don't like this in the general context AT ALL. The broader implications (as they apply to non-illegals) are very worrisome.

In a sense, I'm glad to see this as it applies to illegals. As it applies to the rest of us, not so much.

[Kellem]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I don't like this in the general context AT ALL. The broader implications (as they apply to non-illegals) are very worrisome.

In a sense, I'm glad to see this as it applies to illegals. As it applies to the rest of us, not so much.

I agree with you on this one, when I first read the article's title I was extremely surprised. But I don't think this is a broad ruling as the title seems to make it.

According to the article, he declined council. Otherwise, this would be really alarming news. I'll check with a few friends what are the implications of the ruling, I do not have nearly enough knowledge to understand what the ruling means.