Stupid **** that pops into my head

TRayB

@Itsfine said:
I've been watching nonsense on YouTube and I wonder how someone can legally waive their Miranda rights when they are severely impaired by a substance.

I'm watching these drunks on TV talking to cops and incriminating the hell out of themselves. Obviously they're guilty anyways, or at least the ones I've seen, but I wonder how someone who doesn't understand that they've killed someone with their car can legally wave one of their rights?

I mean there was this one girl who was a 0.264% and she was so blitzed that if one of her college buddies had slept with her she probably could have claimed that she was too intoxicated to give consent.

So how does the court think that you understand your Miranda Rights in the same scenario?

In my understanding, first of all, Miranda is a warning or notification of rights, and not actual rights (semantics, I know, but bear with me). Second, the rights referred to in a Miranda notice are of the natural or unalienable type, and IMO, cannot be "waived". One can voluntarily ignore the right, and say something incriminating, which may be used against the person even absent Miranda notification. Miranda only is required after being taken into custody. Whatever one says prior to custody and Miranda is admissible. Third, even if one has spoken to police or investigators, before or after Miranda notice, at any time one may "re-assert" the right, and refuse to say any more.

Here's the kicker though. I don't believe being drunk is any excuse for not knowing your rights prior to any police interaction, and it certainly isn't an excuse for not exercising them. Everyone should know one does not have to speak to the police, and the more drunk you are, the more important that becomes.

The best advice is this: Do Not Talk to the Police. Here is a good video on the subject.

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=kN7PjbtnbswWEpJ7

Itsfine

@TRayB said:

@Itsfine said:
I've been watching nonsense on YouTube and I wonder how someone can legally waive their Miranda rights when they are severely impaired by a substance.

I'm watching these drunks on TV talking to cops and incriminating the hell out of themselves. Obviously they're guilty anyways, or at least the ones I've seen, but I wonder how someone who doesn't understand that they've killed someone with their car can legally wave one of their rights?

I mean there was this one girl who was a 0.264% and she was so blitzed that if one of her college buddies had slept with her she probably could have claimed that she was too intoxicated to give consent.

So how does the court think that you understand your Miranda Rights in the same scenario?

In my understanding, first of all, Miranda is a warning or notification of rights, and not actual rights (semantics, I know, but bear with me). Second, the rights referred to in a Miranda notice are of the natural or unalienable type, and IMO, cannot be "waived". One can voluntarily ignore the right, and say something incriminating, which may be used against the person even absent Miranda notification. Miranda only is required after being taken into custody. Whatever one says prior to custody and Miranda is admissible. Third, even if one has spoken to police or investigators, before or after Miranda notice, at any time one may "re-assert" the right, and refuse to say any more.

Yeah on points one and two, I will call that semantics. I understand what you're saying about natural and unalienable. I don't know that I agree with that statement in particular, other than to say the right to not incriminate yourself is inalienable. I think that ultimately though, whether you're talking about waving a right or ignoring a right, I still don't think that with a 0.264% BAC that you have the legal mental capacity to choose that.

Point number 3 leads directly into that. When someone is at that level of intoxication, it'll be several hours before they are coherent enough to realize that they can reassert a right. They may not have even remembered being mirandized. They may not even remember waving that right initially. they may not even understand that they have incriminated themselves and that they need to reassert a right.

Here's the kicker though. I don't believe being drunk is any excuse for not knowing your rights prior to any police interaction, and it certainly isn't an excuse for not exercising them. Everyone should know one does not have to speak to the police, and the more drunk you are, the more important that becomes.

These are all fair points and I agree with that completely. However to counter it, when you reach a level of intoxication where you are not legally allowed to operate a vehicle and you are not legally able to give consent, I think that the police should be shut down by default. My evidence for this is the countless cases where the drunk girl accuses assault or the marriage is annulled or the tattoo parlor is sued successfully.

Of course, there would probably have to be a litmus test and that likely involves quantitative data like the results of a field sobriety test or a BAC breathalyzer (or A blood test if the breathalyzer is declined). those should still be allowed to be administered because they are fact-based quantitative assessments of a person's capacity to understand and assert rights.

From what I know about the law, which is definitely not everything, the police and the prosecution are limited on what they can do to ensure A fair investigation and the continued rates of the clients.

Proof of that lies in the very final statement of Miranda, which paraphrased, reads something along the lines of, "do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?" A fall down drunk cannot possibly accurately answer yes to that question in my opinion.

The best advice is this: Do Not Talk to the Police. Here is a good video on the subject.

100%.

Good conversation!

TRayB

I understand what you are saying about someone not having the capacity to realise one may assert (or reassert) a right due to intoxication, and I understand your concern that the police may (or will) take advantage of said incapacity to gain information detrimental to the "suspect".

Practically speaking though, if the police were to perform tests to determine _capacity to proceed _with an investigation, that seems to me to be beyond the scope of typical field sobriety test used to determine whether one has committed a crime by being intoxicated, therefor the person should already be in custody, and beyond the point where Miranda notification is required. It's sorta a Catch 22 in that regard. If a person is being detained for suspicion of some crime, but they have to be detained for several hours until they sober up, then Miranda is required prior to sobering up, since they are detained.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing that someone may be temporarily incapable of understanding the Miranda notice, but that just brings me back to my point. I believe Miranda has been around long enough that the vast majority (say 99.999%) of people in the U.S. know they have the right to remain silent, but the vast majority of those are incapable of exercising the right, sober or not. There seems to be an assumption that, because someone believes they are innocent (or justified), talking to the police will make the police understand they are innocent (or justified). Some people also believe they are smarter than the police (I'm looking at you, Bryan Kohberger), and they can talk there way out of a charge.

Contrary to the slogan on the side of many police vehicles, the police are not here primarily to Serve and Protect, they are here to respond to situations where a crime may have occurred, determine who is a suspect, and build a case that can be tried and decided beyond a reasonable doubt. Talking to the police, whether prior to arrest or after, very rarely can help, and most likely will harm ones chances to remain free.

ShawnOL

Their

TRayB

@ShawnOL said:
Their

Lol, I was waiting for someone pick up on that. I only noticed it after the edit period expired.