Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>I would have supposed it unnecessary to point out to -you- Joyce
>the essential differences between a confession and a search or why
>the two are in no way constitutionally equivelent.
They are both means to collect evidence to be used against the
accused. They both require the voluntary consent. Consent for both
can be obtained by intimidation and deception. Many people are
ignorant about their rights to both.
>But, consider it on a philosophical level. Before the accused
>opens his mouth, there -is- no confession.
>
>The evidence in the house exists (or does not exists) independently of
>whether consent is given for the search.
>
>How would we enforce a Miranda-type warning for consent searches?
Same as now. The cop lies if he can get away with it, and doesn't if
he can't.
Now really, are our police so lame that they can't apprehend dangerous
criminals without relying on them to consent to voluntary searches?
I suspect that the "consented search" option is an excellent way for
cops to plant drug evidence.
>We can assume that the un-Mirandized accused would not have confessed
>had s/he been given the appropriate warnings. But can we assume that
>the cops would not have located the evidence without the consent to
>the search?
You make MY case here. If the cops would have gotten the evidence,
then they didn't need to intimidate and coerce the suspect into
consenting to the search. (Instead of saying "we're just going to get
a warrant" they should just go get one. If they really want to save
the accused the time, they should at least have to state that the
suspect has the right to decline to consent, and that this can not be
used against him, before they go into the intimidation/deception
routine.)
What's wrong with telling people the truth about their legal rights?
