Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   David Nathanson (d_j_nathanson@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 08-Jun-2024 12:51:05 JST David Nathanson

   It’s #STFUfriday!

   When cops ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and then STFU:

   - I am not discussing how I’m doing or where I’m going.

   - Am I free to leave?

   - I am not answering any questions.

   - If they ask to search anything: "I do not consent to a search."

   - I want to speak to a lawyer.

   One of the biggest obstacles to claiming those protections? Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and Timothy McVeigh.

   In short the AEDPA. #RepealAEDPA 🧵

   • Embed this notice
     David Nathanson (d_j_nathanson@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 08-Jun-2024 12:51:03 JST David Nathanson

     in reply to

     People under stress and feeling intimidated rarely speak with perfect clarity. They’re afraid of saying things that will make the interrogator angry. So they equivocate, saying things like “Could I call my lawyer,” “I think I might want an attorney.” State court judges (who are often former prosecutors) could rule that these are ambiguous requests for a lawyer even if it’s clear from context that you were asking for a lawyer.

     It's “lawyer dawg” level of stupid.
     https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html
     /4

   • Embed this notice
     David Nathanson (d_j_nathanson@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 08-Jun-2024 12:51:04 JST David Nathanson

     in reply to

     Asking for a lawyer is a super-power. It provides perhaps the strongest protection in US law. If a person in police custody responds to questioning by asking for a lawyer, the police must stop questioning the person about ANY crime.

     Because the protections are so broad and powerful, SCOTUS has refused to apply them unless you make a “clear and unambiguous” request for a lawyer. That’s the rub. /3

     Tokyo Outsider (337ppm) repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     David Nathanson (d_j_nathanson@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 08-Jun-2024 12:51:05 JST David Nathanson

     in reply to

     • Radley Balko

     A lot of what follows about the AEDPA is found in consistently great reporting by Radley Balko @radleybalko
     
     https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-maddening-irrelevance-of-charlie

     Not surprisingly, John Oliver also did a great job of explaining how bad the AEDPA is. https://youtu.be/kpYYdCzTpps?si=kfFghd8DHelUBrv9

     But here, I’m focusing specifically on how AEDPA affects the Miranda protections.
     A good law review that inspired this thread is here: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4702&context=wlr

     /2