Jun
01

Is "Fuck Off" Clear Enough?

Evoking the right to remain silent by remaining silent is too ambiguous, the United States Supreme Court held yesterday. In yet another 5-4 decision chipping away at the right of the people to be other than supine playthings for the state, the Court held that silence, even protracted silence, is no bar to interrogation by police officers.

The ruling in Berghuis v. Thompkins hardly surprises. The law tilts increasingly in favor of law enforcement. Such rights as we retain against the government and state actors are eroded in the name of judicial restraint. We're going to repeal the "activism" of the Warren Court if it takes a Gulag to do it.

But take heart. It is still the law that citizens cannot breach the peace of a police officer. In other words, the normal bar against offensive speech applicable to communications between private citizens does not apply to a confrontation between a police officer and a citizen. It's still all right to blow off some steam when the boys in blue come looking for you.

The Supreme Court decided conclusively that you must make it clear and umabiguous to police officers that you want to remain silent. Normal polite conventions, such as refusing to speak, do not apply. You need to spell it out for the coppers. Make it crystal clear. Lay it out loud and bold.

So here is a quick street pointer to those suddenly in the clutches of the police: Call it Street Miranda.

1. Hey, numb fucking nuts. (Male)
Hey, you ovarian lump. (Female)

2. Read my lips. Look me in the eye. Put the freaking donut down and tape record this so you can't deny I said it later. Are you ready? C'mon, focus. Ready?

3. Fuck off. Kiss my ass. Eat shit. Die. Do anything you want to do, but do it elsewhere because I am not buying your shit. Period.

4. Do I have your attention yet? Am I clear enough for you? Is my tone ambiguous you reptilian cocksucker (male) or slut (female)?

5. Good. I see I have your attention. Now check your tape recorder to make sure it is working.

6. Although my lips are moving, I do not want to talk to you without a lawyer present. I do not believe you have my best interest in mind. You have the right to trick me, to deceive me, and you have been taught to gain and then abuse my trust.

7. Anything I say, and how I say it, will be used by you to try to convict me whether I am guilty or not. You will lie, distort and manipulate the evidence to suit your purposes. You have the assistance of the prosecutor without cost to you. Anything you want you can get if your suspicions about me are significant.

8. I want a lawyer because I do not trust you. I want this recorded because I do not trust you. I do not want to answer any more questions until I have a lawyer because you are untrustowrthy. Stop looking at me like you just fell off a turnip truck. Shut the fuck up and get out of my face.

9. Am I clear enough now?

Of course, carrying on in this vein has its downside. But it has the benefit of being unambiguous enough for most police officers to understand. Some members of the Supreme Court will undoubtedly struggle with the nuances.
Comments (3)
Posted on June 2, 2010 at 2:25 pm by Ray Sipsa
Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...
Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice afforded members of our armed forces "Miranda" rights over a decade before the United States Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona. Why then the fuss and controversy over providing civilians with these very same rights?

The sad fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court's Miranda decision has been watered down to almost nothing. Lip service is paid to Miranda - and then the decision is ignored.

Posted on June 2, 2010 at 8:21 am by Norm Pattis
Anon:
I generally don't post ad hominem attacks a...
Anon:

I generally don't post ad hominem attacks against either me or commenters. Obviously, that is a judgment call on my part. I've neglected to publish your post today as it struck me as a personal attack.

Thanks for reading and for caring about this blog.

N

Posted on June 2, 2010 at 4:53 am by William Doriss
Does anyone seriously believe the police read Supr...
Does anyone seriously believe the police read Supreme court decisions and stay on 'top' of the law as interpreted by the courts? Many police are functionally illiterate. If your IQ is too high, you will NOT be accepted into the academy. You are deemed 'unsuitable' for police work, the rationale goes, for the simple reason that you will become bored and eventually quit. In other words, only morons and super-charged, pseudo-macho types and dikes need apply.

Every recruit lost to boredom means thousands of dollars of training and equipment down the drain for the municipality. At least that was the ruling in a New London case about twenty years ago which I am unable to cite.

The police do as they are told to do; it's a para-military organization. Depending upon the jurisdiction, they may do whatever they want to do or whatever they can get away with, as we have seen multiple times over the past few years, not only in CT but neighboring states and all around the country. In Mexico, the cops are either afraid of the narco-trafficers or else bought-off by same. No Mirando rights in Mexico! It's either sh!t or get off the potty and into the paddy wagon.

Where was I?

I would like to remind everyone that the cops also work hand-in-hand with the state prosecutors. If the State tells the cops to lie, they lie. If the cop lies on his own, the State will not investigate charges of perjury, nor prosecute police officers for the crime of perjury. Thanks, Mr. BloominTall, for a job well done! The judge in my case told the jury, "The police officer has the right to come into court and state his opinion."

That's funny, because the same judge would not allow me to state my 'opinion' when I testified on my own behalf in November, 2002 at GA 23, when facing 69 years of totally bogus, trumped-up charges of criminal misconduct. I thought the police officer swore "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I suppose the judge slept thru that class in 'law' school?

Oh well, what's a fib here and there amongst friends (in the judiciary and law enforcement, of course)?!? Pretty soon, we're talking real LIES, FABRICATIONS and UNTRUTHS.

For the record here, the State of Connecticut put on two police officers who lied about me and my cases under oath at GA 23, Nov. 2002. One officer said he was the 'arresting officer'. He was NOT the arresting officer, the one required to write the police report. When I told the court who actually arrested me, everyone in attendance yawned. Neither the judge, the prosecutor, nor the defense table requested the presence of the officer I named, in order to test my own credibility. Mine is a case study in police-state collusion which should be taught in all law schools.

Not to worry; it is all a matter of public record, and the police officer's names are also a matter of public record. Needless to say, the record has yet to be 'corrected', as if anybody at the State were interested in correcting any records.

I wish someone would start a Shadow Supreme Court. It could not possibly be worse than the one we have now. If anyone takes me up on this revolutionary idea, I want credit!?! I want the movie rights too.

P.S., I was never read my 'Miranda rights' when arrested by New Haven police. Furthermore, as strange as it may seem, I was never interrogated by them either. Everything they said I said was a bald-assed lie, for the very simple reason that I said absolutely NOTHING. This college grad and veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces is anything but stew-pid. And don't forget, Mayor Frankenstuff's father was a corrupt New Haven cop. The apple does fall far from the tree. And, leadership starts at the top, Mr. DeStePhony--New Haven's own Green Monster. Can U say PERF Report?!?
For Display:
What is the month?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video