WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Friday, January 30, 2015

MIRANDA IN ACTION AND PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING

We all know the warnings. 
You have the right to remain silent….. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you, ….Once we are finished speaking with you and getting you to incriminate yourself, because we really don't respect or protect the constitution, we just figure out ways to work around it. 

The below video shows what happens when the right to counsel is invoked before the police finish with a suspect.  An 18 year veteran of the San Francisco Public Defenders Office refuses to back down, and gets arrested. 








Miami is different then San Fran. In Miami, the person taking the video with the I phone would have, tragically, been jumped and beaten senseless by unknown individuals as the police were looking the other way for a moment. We speak with authority on this because we once represented the owner of a video camera who filmed an arrest. They went to trial several months after leaving the hospital. We had the video as members of the crowd were able to get it away from the police. This was circa 1995. It was a quick NG. 


PROOF OF GOLBAL WARMING
It's cool in South Florida now, but we sense a warming trend:




See you in court. Enjoy the beautiful winter weekend. 


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know and agree that this is a PR nightmare and looks terrible.

However, in California resisting arrest covers obstruction. To the extent she obstructed their ability to take photographs, if they were doing so lawfully (public place, or terry stop [if subjs were detained]), wasn't her arrest proper?

Again, it looks terrible, it's a politically and pragmatically poor decision, but was it unlawful?

Claude Erskine - Browne said...

An Attorney is arrested for advising a client. Bet she would be arrested for obstruction for telling the client not to answer the cops questions also. Maybe we should arrest all defense lawyers cause they obstruct the process of convictions , damn the 4th, 5th & 6th amendments, after all, all defendants / arrestees are guilty/ criminals anyway..

Anonymous said...

There's a Florida Statute that says lawyers have a right to meet with clients and be left alone.

That cop is a jerk. Arresting a PD for asking not to have client photographed is an outrage.

Anonymous said...

I recently had a client call me in a panic from a hospital parking lot. His girlfriend had just died of a drug overdose. He said the police told him he couldn't leave until after he spoke with the detective. I told him he a right not to talk to the detective and it would be better if he didn't. I then asked him to ask the police if he could go home. I also asked him to say that he did not want to talk with police unless his lawyer was present. Remember folks, its his right to invoke and not my right to invoke for him.

What I heard was amazing. The cops told him and I heard him say this:
1. You have no right to remain silent.
2. You will talk to the detective or you will go to jail and you can make a call to your lawyer from jail.
3. Your lawyer is a clown. That lawyer shit is only in the movies.

The Detective came, client "lawyered up" and client was allowed to leave.

It's hard to teach people to respect the police when they do that kid of shit.

This happened in December 2014.

Anonymous said...

I never eat a pig
'Cuz a pig is a cop

Grapes of Wrath said...

@ His girlfriend had just died of a drug overdose.

Henry Fonda as Tom Joad: "Seems like the government's got more interest in a dead man than a live one."

Grapes of Wrath

Anonymous said...

SEATTLE?

Anonymous said...

The Professor says:

1:38 is correct. The attorney was wrong. It was a public place and one does not have a constitutional right to not be photographed in a public place. She clearly was obstructing. It would be the same in Florida.

This is not the same as videoing an arrest. This attorney was purposely obstructing the officers attempts to take the photograph, and what did she accomplish. She got arrested and the picture got taken anyway.

Anonymous said...

1:38 is right. I'd add that she didn't even represent the guy according to what she said.

PS---the cop wasn't a jerk. He warned her and spoke nicely to her.

Claude Erskine - Browne said...

Professor,
Don't you have a Right not to be involved in a consentual encounter with the police? Can't you in public put your hands over your face to avoid a photo? Can't you in a consentual encounter walk away and refuse to talk or assist the cops? What's the difference between not cooperating in a photo and not agreeing to give your fingerprints or DNA? Don't you have a right in an consentual encounter not to cooperate?

Anonymous said...

Miranda DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS, dumb asses.

Huey Freeman said...

Sooooooo some people believe that the police can lawfully detain you just because they want to take you picture? Scary.

Anonymous said...

Claude:

You do have the right to walk away from the officer and not cooperate, unless he is prepared to claim that you are being stopped under Terry v. Ohio. However, even then you can refuse to cooperate. There is nothing that stops the officer from following the two men and continuing to take picture either.

The problem here is that the two individuals were not refusing to cooperate, their attorney was speaking for them. They did not try to turn around or cover their faces.

There is no evidence that this was part of an ongoing investigation involving a pending case against these two gentlemen. There was nothing indicating that the PD had been appointed on any other case other than the one that was pending.

The 6th Amendment is case specific (Edwards), and nothing in what happened indicated a custodial interrogation that would invoke their right to the right to counsel attaching.

This was just a PD being, what PDs can sometimes be, a little self-righteous and a little full of herself. And, of course, wrong.