The podcast delves into the Supreme Court case allowing repeated interrogations with an arbitrary 14-day waiting period. It explores Justice Clarence Thomas's views on the Edwards rule and tensions in the legal system regarding self-representation. The analysis criticizes unrealistic expectations on individuals during police interrogations and emphasizes the risks of interacting with law enforcement without a lawyer.
After invoking the right to an attorney, police can wait 14 days and re-interrogate without providing an attorney, as ruled in Maryland v. Shatzer.
Skepticism towards prophylactic rules like Miranda rights may erode these rights and lead to potential violations by law enforcement.
Deep dives
Case Overview
The podcast episode discusses the case of Maryland v. Shatzer, which focuses on Miranda rights. The court ruled that once a suspect invokes their right to an attorney, the police can wait 14 days and then re-interrogate the suspect without providing an attorney. The episode explores the implications of this ruling and the potential loopholes it creates.
Legal History of Miranda Rights
The podcast provides background on the legal history of Miranda rights. It explains that the Miranda v. Arizona case established the requirement for police to inform suspects of their rights. The Edwards v. Arizona case further clarified that once a suspect requests an attorney, the police cannot re-approach and re-interrogate the suspect. However, the Maryland v. Shatzer case created a new rule that allows the police to re-interrogate after a 14-day break in custody.
Critique of the 14-Day Rule
The podcast criticizes the 14-day rule established in the Maryland v. Shatzer case. It argues that the rule fails to protect the underlying principles of Miranda rights. Specifically, it suggests that the rule undermines the right to an attorney and can lead to coercion and violations of suspects' rights during interrogations.
Skepticism Towards Prophylactic Rules
The podcast examines the court's skepticism towards prophylactic rules, such as Miranda rights. It highlights how this skepticism provides a framework for potentially eroding or abandoning these rights altogether. The episode also discusses the unintended consequences and dangers of relying solely on the good faith of law enforcement in the implementation of these rules.
Groundhog Day but make it interrogation. The Supreme Court says cops are welcome to keep hauling you in for questioning as long as they honor an arbitrary waiting period.
If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.
5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.
Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon.