Police recording of custodial interrogations

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon L Bang ◽  
Duane Stanton ◽  
Craig Hemmens ◽  
Mary K Stohr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
False Confessions ◽  
Innocent People ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States recognized in its seminal case Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) that police used overly coercive techniques during custodial interrogations to obtain confessions. Yet, post Miranda, police officers still utilize legal coercive and deceptive techniques during custodial interrogations. Unfortunately, some of these techniques have proven to be so coercive that they lead to false confessions and innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit. Some states have taken measures to protect the accused during custodial interrogations and require the police to record custodial interrogations under certain conditions. The policies and procedures that mandate interrogation recording vary in scope and by state. This article sheds light on the different statutes and policies implemented at the state level that regulate custodial interrogation recording.

The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Religion

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Local School ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Liberty Of Conscience ◽  
Bible Reading

The Supreme Court of the United States, whose decisions not only define constitutional law but vitally affect national policy, has long held both an honored and a controversial place in American life. In no area do its decisions bring it more honor or more controversy than in the field of religion; for, as a member of the First Congress under the Constitution said, “the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand. … Thus, the same decision of the Court may be hailed by some as a great landmark in the struggle for religious liberty, and denounced by others as a serious invasion of liberty of conscience. For although it may be pleasant to dream of religion insulated from governmental touch, the dual membership of citizens in the state and in religious bodies insures that conscience and government will touch at some points with inevitable friction, and, to the conscience so touched, it makes little difference whether the governmental hand is that of a local school board, the Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court has recently been attacked as antireligious, or at least as callous to our religious heritage, because of its decisions invalidating a state-prescribed prayer and state-prescribed Bible reading in public schools. The first of these decisions prompted the more excited outcry, but the two, at first singly and then together, have precipitated a renewed debate about the proper constitutional relationship between the state and religion.

Exile within the United States

1965 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Brent T. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Agency

The Utah Board of Pardons, an executive agency, releases some Utah prison inmates by an order of "conditional termina tion," which directs the recipient to leave the state immediately and remain away permanently. The Supreme Court of Utah has recently held this order to be valid and constitutional, a ruling attacked by this article, which cites cases wherein rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are violated. Public policy, sound penology, and constitutional law all militate against use of conditional termination.

The Unrealized Precedent of DAVIS V. BANDEMER

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R. Seabrook
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
The State ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Districts ◽  
State Legislative

This chapter examines the involvement of the Supreme Court of the United States in litigation relating to partisan gerrymandering, paying particular attention to a case that attempted to apply the previously established Davis v. Bandemer precedent to congressional elections: Vieth v. Jubelirer. It begins with an overview of Badham v. Eu, which arose from the redrawing of California's congressional districts in the aftermath of the 1980 census and its most significant holding: that the Bandemer precedent, which had initially been applied to the drawing of state legislative districts only, also extends to the drawing of congressional districts. The chapter then considers the circumstances surrounding the Vieth case, in which the alleged political gerrymander concerned the reapportionment plan for the congressional districts in the state of Pennsylvania rather than those for the state assembly. It also analyzes the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Vieth, focusing on Justice Antonin Scalia's plurality opinion and Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion.

Rethinking Blaisdell: State Debt Relief and the Limits of Constitutional Doctrine

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 658-677
Author(s):  
Emily Zackin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Debt Relief ◽  
State Legislation ◽  
Home Building ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
State Legislative

AbstractIn the landmark case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a state-level debt relief statute that was quite similar to those it had long deemed to violate the Contracts Clause. The dissent even argued that the Contracts Clause was written precisely to prohibit this type of state legislation. Rather than seeking to understand or characterize this doctrinal shift, as most work on Blaisdell has done, this article argues that Contracts Clause doctrine had never actually eradicated the state practice of intervening in contracts. The article both highlights and explains the long-standing mismatch between Contracts Clause doctrine and state legislative practice that preceded this ruling. Whatever Blaisdell meant as a matter of doctrine, it should also be understood as evidence of a durable state-level commitment to protecting debtors from the potentially ruinous consequences of private economic bargains.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gideon Yaffe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Duct Tape

The case of Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551) presents a set of facts that test almost anyone’s intuitions favoring the idea that kids should be shielded from the worst punishments, punishments that are justifiably heaped on adults. More for the thrill of it than anything else, Christopher Simmons, together with two friends, broke into a randomly chosen home in the middle of the night, abducted Shirley Crook from her bedroom, bound her hands, legs, and head tightly with duct tape, and threw her off a bridge. She drowned in the waters below. Simmons later bragged about the murder, saying that he did it “because the bitch seen my face.” This repulsive remark was an evident lie, not that it matters, since there was ample evidence that Simmons had planned to kill Crook well before he and his friends even entered her home. Shirley Crook left behind a grief-stricken husband and daughter, both of whom testified at the sentencing phase of the trial to the havoc that the murder had wreaked on their lives. One and only one thing can be said on Simmons’ behalf, and it was duly noted by the attorneys in the case when addressing the jury that sentenced him to die: Christopher Simmons was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Eventually the Supreme Court of the United States reached the conclusion that this one fact was significant enough to warrant withholding from Simmons the worst that the state can do to a person: the court saved Simmons’ life, ruling that no one under 18 at the time of a crime could be executed for it, no matter how heinous the conduct....

Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki: Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych z dnia 6 lipca 2020 r. w sprawie Peter B. Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra i Esther Virginia John vs. stan Waszyngton (dotyczący legalności nakładania na elektorów sankcji za oddanie głosu niezgodnego z wynikami wyborów powszechnych), 591 US (2020)

2021 ◽  
Vol 5(166) ◽  
pp. 237-248
Author(s):  
Marcin Rulka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
General Election ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
2016 Election

The case concerned the election of the President of the United States of America who is elected by the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, Washington’s three electors voted inconsistent with the results of the general election in the state from which they were delegated. As a result, these electors were fined $ 1,000. The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of this type of solution, because there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States of America that would explicitly prohibit states from depriving presidential electors of their freedom to vote.

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (40) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The paper analyses some relevant issues related to the treatment oflaw enforcement officers in the United States after a person has been taken intocustody or otherwise deprived of liberty, which requires informing that personof his/her constitutional rights. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona(1966), the Supreme Court of the United States set standards for law enforcementofficers to follow when interrogating suspects held in custody.Suspects who are subject to custodial interrogation must be warned of theirright to remain silent; that any statements they make may be used as evidenceagainst them; that they have a right to an attorney; and if they cannot afford anattorney, the State will assign them one prior to any questioning, if they so wish.According to Miranda, unless those rights are not read, any evidence obtainedduring the interrogation may not be used against the defendant.Ever since Miranda was decided, state and federal courts have struggled witha number of issues with regard to its application, including the suspect’s beingin custody, which entitles the suspect to being readMiranda rights, the suspect’swaiving the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Some decisionsby the U.S. Supreme Court have attempted to answer these difficult questions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document