Having begun my career in law enforcement, I gasped at the history of US Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s that hampered police effectiveness; however, now as a defender of liberty and justice, I watch as landmark decisions favorable to citizens and my clients are challenged.
Last summer I was surprised that the US Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of a vehicle unconstitutional once the sole occupant was handcuffed and unable to access the vehicle with certain exceptions of course, but yet recently found police had no affirmative obligation to tell an interrogated suspect he had the right not to talk to officers after the classic Miranda Warning was given.
Regarding last summer's ruling, I disagreed with the logic in the decision and although glad of the restriction I rationalize such a search under many of the existing warrantless search exceptions.
The current latitude now afforded officers in interrogations to in essence take advantage of a person already fraught with anxiety confounds me. Experience tells me that the general public already grossly misunderstand their individual rights under the Constitution and the erosion of an essential warning developed over time (though admittedly no basis or requirement under the Constitution) seems unjust to me.
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html
See: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MIRANDA+LAW+ERODED+IN+CALIFORNIA+CASE+FIFTH+AMENDMENT+RIGHTS+WEAKENED...-a0102865452
