In that case, I can go along with it. The Miranda warning is not a law, and therefore is not a violation of law or rights, as long as evidence is not allowed in court.
Miranda v. Arizona's most important point is this:
Where constitutional rights are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
That principle MUST be upheld by all government employees.
But the warning itself was just a suggestion in the Miranda case. The court said basically, "If you give this warning, then courts will presume that the defendant was aware that they did not have to talk and that they could have a lawyer present. If they still talk, then that is on them."
Since an absence of the warning, by itself, is not a violation of law or a right, though it is a violation of department policy, I can see it being used as the tool it was intended to be: to disallow evidence where it cannot be shown that the defendant knew he did not have to say anything (Miranda gave a confession).
However ...
Police who DO violate the law and who DO violate the rights of the people they come into contact with SHOULD be held accountable via civil rights lawsuits against them personally.
Because there is also a court case out there (forget which one) that says that there is no such thing as immunity for anyone who commits a crime.
In that case, I can go along with it. The Miranda warning is not a law, and therefore is not a violation of law or rights, as long as evidence is not allowed in court.
Miranda v. Arizona's most important point is this:
That principle MUST be upheld by all government employees.
But the warning itself was just a suggestion in the Miranda case. The court said basically, "If you give this warning, then courts will presume that the defendant was aware that they did not have to talk and that they could have a lawyer present. If they still talk, then that is on them."
Since an absence of the warning, by itself, is not a violation of law or a right, though it is a violation of department policy, I can see it being used as the tool it was intended to be: to disallow evidence where it cannot be shown that the defendant knew he did not have to say anything (Miranda gave a confession).
However ...
Police who DO violate the law and who DO violate the rights of the people they come into contact with SHOULD be held accountable via civil rights lawsuits against them personally.
Because there is also a court case out there (forget which one) that says that there is no such thing as immunity for anyone who commits a crime.