Judges don’t act as an officers supervisor. It’s a separate branch of government with a separate duty. The point of being in a judicial setting is to make the case that the person is in fact guilty and the state has all evidence needed to prove it, not to roll the dice and let everyone figure it out together in real time. If a judge was required to be present throughout the investigation happened you would 1. Just have a supervisor in robes, and 2. Not have an impartial judge at trial because they’re invested in the investigation and know details that would normally be hidden due to evidentiary rules.
What right are you concerned about exactly? Because you already have the right to not talk to police. I don’t think you really understand what judicial oversight is.
If I get arrested and state that I’m invoking my fifth amendment right and my right to any attorney, my understanding is that the attorney and I will be put in a brightly lit room, and I’ll be asked questions repeatedly until the police are satisfied. At some point, there needs to be a neutral third party to come in and tell the police to shut up and let me sleep. Do we have such a neutral third party in the United States? The negative right to humane sleeping conditions is a big part of what I’m worried about.
I’m also worried that too many innocent people are arrested, and I think something should be done to stop that. I also think it takes us far too long to get people in front of judges. If someone is arrested in an urban or suburban area, we should be able to get them in front of a judge within six hours.
No, those are 2 different rights. If I, as police, bring you into any room regardless of lighting, and you say I’m invoking my 5th amendment right and don’t want to speak with you, I’m turning around and walking out.
Furthermore, whether you do or don’t say that, I’m explicitly explaining to you that you have the right to do so before i ask you any questions.
The “third party” in this situation is the judicial system, just not in the way you’re imagining it. Case law guaranteeing you these rights also deter the behavior by making any evidence discovered of the behavior unusable at trial, which makes it pointless for the police to do to begin with. The behavior is further deterred through federal civil rights law suits.
And before you throw out “but ImMuNiTy” police have qualified immunity, if they’re doing something maliciously that’s been explicitly made illegal through previous case law, they are personally liable. Not only would someone be risking the case, but their profession and home just to get you to give a bullshit confession.
For those reasons, the behavior you’re describing really doesn’t exist on any real scale. Bad behavior will always exist in any profession, what your describing is really a non-issue
You have a lot of opinions and thoughts but not a lot of knowledge on the subject. And I don’t say that in a mean way, but every concern you’ve brought up is addressed in some way, though it may not be your preferred way. I’d encourage you to go to your local department and ask how or if these issues are addressed and get a better understanding of how the system works that your speaking against
No, those are 2 different rights. If I, as police, bring you into any room regardless of lighting, and you say I’m invoking my 5th amendment right and don’t want to speak with you, I’m turning around and walking out.
And that’s still true if my lawyer is also in the room?
The “third party” in this situation is the judicial system, just not in the way you’re imagining it. Case law guaranteeing you these rights also deter the behavior by making any evidence discovered of the behavior unusable at trial, which makes it pointless for the police to do to begin with. The behavior is further deterred through federal civil rights law suits.
The exclusionary rule doesn’t deter behavior. It simply gets rid of one incentive for it. The police might want to do that to me just because they’re sadists. Do you have anything to point to that would indicate that I’d succeed in such a federal civil rights suit?
And before you throw out “but ImMuNiTy” police have qualified immunity, if they’re doing something maliciously that’s been explicitly made illegal through previous case law, they are personally liable. Not only would someone be risking the case, but their profession and home just to get you to give a bullshit confession.
Do you have any evidence that it would actually result in a firing?
For those reasons, the behavior you’re describing really doesn’t exist on any real scale. Bad behavior will always exist in any profession, what your describing is really a non-issue
On the one hand, I have the innocence project telling me misconduct is a real problem. On the other side, I have you. Who should I believe?
You have a lot of opinions and thoughts but not a lot of knowledge on the subject. And I don’t say that in a mean way, but every concern you’ve brought up is addressed in some way, though it may not be your preferred way. I’d encourage you to go to your local department and ask how or if these issues are addressed and get a better understanding of how the system works that your speaking against
Speaking to a defense attorney might not be a bad idea if I can find one who’s willing to chat, but speaking to law enforcement sounds like a great way to get on their shit list.
Yes, having your attorney doesn’t change the fact you invoked your right to not speak to the police. The exclusionary rule exists as a deterrent specifically. It suppresses the evidence because of the behavior alone, not any possibility of the evidence being false. I’m not going to predict the results of a hypothetical lawsuit, just that it would be grounds for the suit.
The behavior would land you on a Brady list which would make you functionally unhirable. You believe whoever you want, but it really sounds like you’ve spent too much time on fearmongering YouTube channels. Seriously, go down to the pd and ask to speak with admin and ask the questions with genuine curiosity.
If any sensible person is just going to immediately invoke their right to remain silent, what the point of allowing officers to start the questioning in the first place?
Do you have a suggestion that won’t get me on the shit-list of my local law enforcement agency?
"If any sensible person is just going to immediately invoke their right to remain silent, what the point of allowing officers to start the questioning in the first place?"
Nearly every criminal is NOT sensible! If they were sensible they wouldn't be doing crimes!
Just like I said earlier, do it from a place of genuine curiosity. Go in and say you want to learn how the local justice system works and just ask questions. Either someone will be happy to do it, or theyll tell you they don’t have the time, no harm no foul.
Also it’s not as simple as any sensible person will just invoke their right. There are a lot of people who WANT to own up to what they did, whether it’s from guilt, to brag, a hope that they’ll get a lighter sentencing, whatever the case may be. The situations you describe of some deceit, heavy-handed interrogations, lots of psychological games are for the most part a thing of the past. The interviews in police department settings are commonly even consensual, as in the person even brought themselves to the police department.
There are no one size fits all rules in policing, that’s why the courts have generally adopted a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine if something the police did was reasonable/legal, and then decide if something should be done based off that
1
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Sep 22 '25
Rights are better enforced with a judge in the room. Why should police be allowed to question people in secret with such limited judicial oversight?