On The Alex Jones Show in 2002-11-28, they discuss the case of Miranda rights with Mark from
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. They clarify that the case does not aim to get rid of Miranda
rights, but rather it is about a person named Chavez suing the police for questioning him without
adhering to the Miranda Rule in a civil lawsuit. The Miranda Rule only deals with the admissibility
of confessions or statements as evidence at criminal trials and does not create any civil lawsuits.
The show also addresses checkpoints where people are searched without probable cause, and cities can
be sued if they violate constitutional rights.
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.
You're the lawyer, but it looks like it definitely impedes it.
Well, tell us about it.
unidentified
Well, the Miranda rule as such just deals with what confessions and what statements are admissible and evidence at a criminal trial.
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.
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.
And neither should the police departments be sued, because they haven't committed any offense.
They may have gathered some evidence that is not admissible in a criminal trial, but they have not violated any law.
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.
unidentified
Yeah, if they stop everybody and search the car without probable cause, that would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
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?
unidentified
Well, that was the Dickerson case, and actually, the Clinton Justice Department supported the defendant in that case.
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.
That was all over the news.
What, about four or five years ago?
You don't remember that?
unidentified
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.
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.
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.
And out in Los Angeles, they just threw out the Rampart case, so we're not going to charge these people.
But here you are saying, oh, officers could be sued.
Where do you stand on that?
unidentified
I mean, obviously officers can be sued, and if it's a policy, cities can be sued when they do violate constitutional rights.
The parties file their briefs, one on behalf of the police officer, one on behalf of the plaintiff, the person who was arrested.
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.
They got a little bitty black microphone on their tie.
Those citizens don't even know that.
It's connected to a wireless camera in the squad car.
And they start going, so what's going on with guns and drugs in here?
And they start trying to get me to incriminate myself.
And I'll say, you know what?
You're violating my Miranda.
I'm under arrest.
You've stopped me here.
This is really false imprisonment.
You've got a microphone on me right now.
I mean, this really is illegal wireless bugging.
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.
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.
unidentified
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.
But, I mean, you're certainly involved in these type of cases.
I mean, certainly you know state police universally have these now in many local departments.
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.
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.
unidentified
Well, if they use it in a criminal prosecution, then you could have a Miranda violation.
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.
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.
That is clearly going on.
unidentified
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.
