The right can and will be/against you.
June 28, 2022 8:23 AM Subscribe
Last week, the Supreme Court gutted Miranda rights. In Vega v. Tekoh, SCOTUS found that Miranda is merely an evidentiary trial rule (evidence obtained improperly can still be suppressed at trial), rather than a substantive constitutional right. Police can no longer be sued for failing to Mirandize a suspect.
Tekoh alleges that officer Vega flashed his gun, called him a racial slur, told him that he and his family members would be deported, refused his requests for a lawyer, and dictated his false confession to him.
Vega functionally overturns the 2000 case Dickerson v. United States, for which the majority opinion was written by conservative Justice William Rehnquist, who upheld it because it was precedent: "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."
Tekoh sued under Section 1983 of the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting.
* post title courtesy of Charles Jensen's "Poem In Which Words Have Been Left Out"
Tekoh alleges that officer Vega flashed his gun, called him a racial slur, told him that he and his family members would be deported, refused his requests for a lawyer, and dictated his false confession to him.
Vega functionally overturns the 2000 case Dickerson v. United States, for which the majority opinion was written by conservative Justice William Rehnquist, who upheld it because it was precedent: "
Tekoh sued under Section 1983 of the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting.
* post title courtesy of Charles Jensen's "Poem In Which Words Have Been Left Out"
WTF USA ?
Distopian fiction was NEVER the GOAL, it was a warning.
posted by rozcakj at 8:46 AM on June 28, 2022 [11 favorites]
Distopian fiction was NEVER the GOAL, it was a warning.
posted by rozcakj at 8:46 AM on June 28, 2022 [11 favorites]
As always the rule remains what it has always been: don't talk to the cops except to say "I want a lawyer". No other words.
posted by hippybear at 10:33 AM on June 28, 2022 [44 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 10:33 AM on June 28, 2022 [44 favorites]
Assume bad faith from cops, district attorneys, etc. assume anyone in the system is willing and eager to screw you, no matter how innocent, virtuous and boring your life is.
If one could assume good faith ,it would be different, but absolutely every system can and will be gamed. it took me too long to get even a little cynical, and it's about damn time. the world belongs to the fuckers. More so, as the Extreme Right is so successful and is exploiting their success.
posted by theora55 at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2022 [27 favorites]
If one could assume good faith ,it would be different, but absolutely every system can and will be gamed. it took me too long to get even a little cynical, and it's about damn time. the world belongs to the fuckers. More so, as the Extreme Right is so successful and is exploiting their success.
posted by theora55 at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2022 [27 favorites]
To clarify: is that cops must still read you your Miranda rights upon arrest, and that if they do not, the evidence is still inadmissible in court as it was before. The decision states you cannot pursue civil damages [1].
[1] - IANAL, but my understanding of what the decision means
I am also not a lawyer, but I think the opinion is considerably worse than this take suggests. Like the Dobbs opinion, it removes a constitutional right. This time, it's the right to be informed of some of your other relevant rights. Under the Miranda opinion, an officer failing to inform you of your rights was itself a violation of your rights. And as such, you could seek civil remedy. But under the new opinion, failure to inform a person of their fifth amendment rights is not itself a violation of their civil rights.
So, there are two things (at least) in common with the Dobbs opinion, both disturbing: [1] Both opinions strip away, rather than expand, civil rights; and [2] both opinions reverse long-standing precedent.
I'm actually not sure which is worse. I might be wrong, but I suspect that reversing or rejecting precedent is the sort of thing that gets easier to do the more you do it. And that's really, really bad news.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2022 [40 favorites]
[1] - IANAL, but my understanding of what the decision means
I am also not a lawyer, but I think the opinion is considerably worse than this take suggests. Like the Dobbs opinion, it removes a constitutional right. This time, it's the right to be informed of some of your other relevant rights. Under the Miranda opinion, an officer failing to inform you of your rights was itself a violation of your rights. And as such, you could seek civil remedy. But under the new opinion, failure to inform a person of their fifth amendment rights is not itself a violation of their civil rights.
So, there are two things (at least) in common with the Dobbs opinion, both disturbing: [1] Both opinions strip away, rather than expand, civil rights; and [2] both opinions reverse long-standing precedent.
I'm actually not sure which is worse. I might be wrong, but I suspect that reversing or rejecting precedent is the sort of thing that gets easier to do the more you do it. And that's really, really bad news.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2022 [40 favorites]
And of course by definition correcting this ruling will require ignoring precedent a second time, which just increases the lift required to undo it's damage because nobody wants the court's decisions to ping-pong back and forth depending on the political winds.
I'm sure in the history of the Supreme Court there's been more than one case where the justices recognized the "correct" decision, but still stayed their hand out of a respect for stare decisis.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:51 AM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm sure in the history of the Supreme Court there's been more than one case where the justices recognized the "correct" decision, but still stayed their hand out of a respect for stare decisis.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:51 AM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
It effectively removes the right. Technically you still have the right to have your rights read to you but now there is no enforcement mechanism. The fig leaf of civil rights support from the Right remains. As the first step in a response let me recommend this.
posted by Ignorantsavage at 11:54 AM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Ignorantsavage at 11:54 AM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
For the curious, a list of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions.
posted by BWA at 12:28 PM on June 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by BWA at 12:28 PM on June 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
As always the rule remains what it has always been: don't talk to the cops except to say "I want a lawyer". No other words.
I was teaching this to my then-eight-year-old a couple of years ago. Apparently I say "lawyer" with an accent, because she kept saying "liar." I felt the point was made.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
I was teaching this to my then-eight-year-old a couple of years ago. Apparently I say "lawyer" with an accent, because she kept saying "liar." I felt the point was made.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
It bears repeating: don't talk to the Police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
posted by the Real Dan at 12:55 PM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
posted by the Real Dan at 12:55 PM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Make sure you explicitly invoke your right to a lawyer, don't leave room for ambiguity.
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:10 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:10 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Make sure you explicitly invoke your right to a lawyer, don't leave room for ambiguity.
Where there is no ambiguity, they will manufacture ambiguity.
posted by explosion at 3:06 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Where there is no ambiguity, they will manufacture ambiguity.
posted by explosion at 3:06 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
As always the rule remains what it has always been: don't talk to the cops except to say "I want a lawyer". No other words.
I believe, “Am I free to go officer?” is also permissible (but not always advisable).
posted by sjswitzer at 3:19 PM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I believe, “Am I free to go officer?” is also permissible (but not always advisable).
posted by sjswitzer at 3:19 PM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
How important is this? I mean, this SCOTUS clearly sucks, but the right to sue for civil damages if you're not Mirandized seems like the least important part of the whole thing, the most important thing by far is that the evidence is not admissible? And yeah, don't talk to the cops.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:24 PM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:24 PM on June 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's not completely fucked that you can't sue for not being Mirandized before giving a statement. If it never gets used against you there aren't really any damages to speak of.
What is fucked is that you can't sue if prosecutors attempt to introduce said statement at trial, or worse, actually get it in and you have to appeal. Lawyers cost money. There are enumerable money damages that can't be cured by overturning the conviction or failing to get it in the first place.
The Supreme Court's reasoning is once again total shit, too. They claim there is no cause of action, but section 1983 creates that cause of action by statute. Even if it's true that there is no common law tort, Congress created one very much on purpose and well within their Constitutional authority. Again, if the statement wasn't actually used and Congress hadn't passed a law that wouldn't be a completely unreasonable argument. But that's not at all the situation. At this point the SC is just inventing facts rather than deciding the cases actually before them.
posted by wierdo at 3:39 PM on June 28, 2022 [14 favorites]
What is fucked is that you can't sue if prosecutors attempt to introduce said statement at trial, or worse, actually get it in and you have to appeal. Lawyers cost money. There are enumerable money damages that can't be cured by overturning the conviction or failing to get it in the first place.
The Supreme Court's reasoning is once again total shit, too. They claim there is no cause of action, but section 1983 creates that cause of action by statute. Even if it's true that there is no common law tort, Congress created one very much on purpose and well within their Constitutional authority. Again, if the statement wasn't actually used and Congress hadn't passed a law that wouldn't be a completely unreasonable argument. But that's not at all the situation. At this point the SC is just inventing facts rather than deciding the cases actually before them.
posted by wierdo at 3:39 PM on June 28, 2022 [14 favorites]
The game is now power. They don’t need coherent philosophies of thought or precedent.
I wish we had an opposition party that was as willing to throw down on the fucking mat or at least understand what game is being played now.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:42 PM on June 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
I wish we had an opposition party that was as willing to throw down on the fucking mat or at least understand what game is being played now.
posted by Slackermagee at 3:42 PM on June 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
How important is this? I mean, this SCOTUS clearly sucks, but the right to sue for civil damages if you're not Mirandized seems like the least important part of the whole thing, the most important thing by far is that the evidence is not admissible? And yeah, don't talk to the cops.
Think about incentives. Police officers now have even less of one to make sure that you are advised of your rights. Before this decision, there was at least some chance that they personally could suffer a penalty as a result of violating Miranda, which might conceivably have guided their behavior. Now? None.
posted by Gadarene at 4:18 PM on June 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
Think about incentives. Police officers now have even less of one to make sure that you are advised of your rights. Before this decision, there was at least some chance that they personally could suffer a penalty as a result of violating Miranda, which might conceivably have guided their behavior. Now? None.
posted by Gadarene at 4:18 PM on June 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
> there is a lot of falsehood in this thread
Inaccuracy might have been the word you were looking for?
Anyway, if somebody knows, which of these were but are no longer grounds to sue:
A) You didn't get your constitutionally required entertainment while being arrested.
B) You were not informed that you have the right to a lawyer (or stay silent) and therefore didn't demand one (or didn't shut up), which ended up doing damage to you.
C) Because of B, you gave evidence that was then falsely not thrown out, which ended up doing damage to you.
D) Some combination of the above
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:25 PM on June 28, 2022
Inaccuracy might have been the word you were looking for?
Anyway, if somebody knows, which of these were but are no longer grounds to sue:
A) You didn't get your constitutionally required entertainment while being arrested.
B) You were not informed that you have the right to a lawyer (or stay silent) and therefore didn't demand one (or didn't shut up), which ended up doing damage to you.
C) Because of B, you gave evidence that was then falsely not thrown out, which ended up doing damage to you.
D) Some combination of the above
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:25 PM on June 28, 2022
kleinsteradikaleminderheit, prior to this Supreme Court decision the answer was (C) if the defendant was tried in the 3rd, 4th, 7th, or 9th circuit, (E) "none of the above" (i.e. they already couldn't sue) if the defendant was tried in the 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th (and probably also the 11th), and (F) "unknown" in the 1st, 2nd, 11th (and probably also the DC circuit).
posted by RichardP at 5:14 PM on June 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by RichardP at 5:14 PM on June 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
The approach to precedent is definitely the bigger problem.
Up here in Canada-land we have not generally had a right to sue in respect of failure to inform someone of their rights, have a generally lower standard for allowing evidence in that stems from violations of rights (rather than fruit from a poisoned tree, "does it bring the administration of justice into disrepute" - very malleable standard that one especially because the seriousness of the offence weighs towards including the evidence), a much more limited jurisprudence and less cases of successful suits for damages for rights violations, and lack some rights like the right to have a lawyer present when interrogated (you can talk to one before who will say 'don't talk to the cops' but that's a lot less useful 10 solo hours later). While unfortunate, what we do have is predictability in the application of the law and a Supreme Court with legitimacy and without associations with political parties. The latter is the more important as to practical outcomes, I think.
Ezra Klien's recent interview with Dahlia Lithwick addressed the precedent issue with respect to Dobbs very cogently.
posted by lookoutbelow at 5:19 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Up here in Canada-land we have not generally had a right to sue in respect of failure to inform someone of their rights, have a generally lower standard for allowing evidence in that stems from violations of rights (rather than fruit from a poisoned tree, "does it bring the administration of justice into disrepute" - very malleable standard that one especially because the seriousness of the offence weighs towards including the evidence), a much more limited jurisprudence and less cases of successful suits for damages for rights violations, and lack some rights like the right to have a lawyer present when interrogated (you can talk to one before who will say 'don't talk to the cops' but that's a lot less useful 10 solo hours later). While unfortunate, what we do have is predictability in the application of the law and a Supreme Court with legitimacy and without associations with political parties. The latter is the more important as to practical outcomes, I think.
Ezra Klien's recent interview with Dahlia Lithwick addressed the precedent issue with respect to Dobbs very cogently.
posted by lookoutbelow at 5:19 PM on June 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
So in the last week court has weakened or outright gutted precedent around religion, guns, reproductive freedom and Miranda.
Amazingly there's one more really bad decision expected shortly: In West Virginia vs. EPA the court is poised to say that the government overstepped its authority by not issuing a non-existent rule that events have shown would have imposed no burdens. (I am not making that up.) It could take a chainsaw through the modern civil state in which experts make decisions on policy.
So it has finally sunk in for me personally, what I've heard others say: Historically, the Supreme Court has worked to limit rights. From Dred Scott to Plessy v. Ferguson to ignoring swaths of the Reconstruction amendments to hamstringing unions to unlimited money in politics to killing the Voting Rights Act to the cascade of disasters just this week.
I've realized People of my age grew up remembering the Warren Court, Justices Brennan and Marshall. Pretty much everything positive opinion about the Supreme Court's reputation stems from that brief, anomalous period. Overall it's an institution that deserves no respect.
posted by mark k at 10:05 PM on June 28, 2022 [15 favorites]
Amazingly there's one more really bad decision expected shortly: In West Virginia vs. EPA the court is poised to say that the government overstepped its authority by not issuing a non-existent rule that events have shown would have imposed no burdens. (I am not making that up.) It could take a chainsaw through the modern civil state in which experts make decisions on policy.
So it has finally sunk in for me personally, what I've heard others say: Historically, the Supreme Court has worked to limit rights. From Dred Scott to Plessy v. Ferguson to ignoring swaths of the Reconstruction amendments to hamstringing unions to unlimited money in politics to killing the Voting Rights Act to the cascade of disasters just this week.
I've realized People of my age grew up remembering the Warren Court, Justices Brennan and Marshall. Pretty much everything positive opinion about the Supreme Court's reputation stems from that brief, anomalous period. Overall it's an institution that deserves no respect.
posted by mark k at 10:05 PM on June 28, 2022 [15 favorites]
Ezra Klien's recent interview with Dahlia Lithwick addressed the precedent issue with respect to Dobbs very cogently.
I just listened to that! I would recommend it too, and the next one on his feed, which is a re-airing of an interview from back in February.
posted by mark k at 10:06 PM on June 28, 2022
I just listened to that! I would recommend it too, and the next one on his feed, which is a re-airing of an interview from back in February.
posted by mark k at 10:06 PM on June 28, 2022
It effectively removes the right. Technically you still have the right to have your rights read to you but now there is no enforcement mechanism.
The most important implication of Miranda has always been the inadmissibility of evidence collected in violation of it, so I think I have to agree that statements like this are incorrect. This decision is still bad, though!
posted by atoxyl at 12:46 AM on June 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
The most important implication of Miranda has always been the inadmissibility of evidence collected in violation of it, so I think I have to agree that statements like this are incorrect. This decision is still bad, though!
posted by atoxyl at 12:46 AM on June 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
When assessing the impact of this, it seems relevant to me that most cases do not actually go to trial. For someone spending six months in jail pre-trial inadmissability is not going to be much help; for the cop who arrested him there's not much of a downside.
posted by mark k at 6:37 AM on June 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by mark k at 6:37 AM on June 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
When they start rounding the undesirables up in the street, can we give them the "Hillary and Trump are basically the same"/"Nothing will change either way" people first, to buy the rest of us some time?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:08 AM on June 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:08 AM on June 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
I did not look at TFA because I am broadly familiar with the news. I did scan the thread and boy hooey there are some people who are really fooling themselves about what this means. Once again, people, with feeling: you are not nearly afraid enough.
The tell in this case is the reasoning "well it doesn't substantively reduce the rights of defendants because they can still move to have the evidence suppressed!" That will last just until the decision that abrogates the exclusionary rule. Which is definitely on the menu! Also, the defendant will need counsel to make that motion to suppress. Guess what other criminal justice right is about to be on the chopping block: right to counsel!
Movement Conservatism has always hated all of the defendant rights enumerated by the Warren court, and they are going after all of them. They are going to bring back the days when if there's a crime that's causing news, the Sherriff can go out and arrest some ni-CLANG, beat a confession out of him, and have him in front of the hangingest judge in the county the next day to plead guilty and get sentenced.
Once again, I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm sure it's the way to bet.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:10 AM on June 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
The tell in this case is the reasoning "well it doesn't substantively reduce the rights of defendants because they can still move to have the evidence suppressed!" That will last just until the decision that abrogates the exclusionary rule. Which is definitely on the menu! Also, the defendant will need counsel to make that motion to suppress. Guess what other criminal justice right is about to be on the chopping block: right to counsel!
Movement Conservatism has always hated all of the defendant rights enumerated by the Warren court, and they are going after all of them. They are going to bring back the days when if there's a crime that's causing news, the Sherriff can go out and arrest some ni-CLANG, beat a confession out of him, and have him in front of the hangingest judge in the county the next day to plead guilty and get sentenced.
Once again, I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm sure it's the way to bet.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:10 AM on June 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
We now live in a country where a handful of radical justices will simply rewrite any legislation based on their political views ignoring all precedent or notion of judicial restraint. I have no idea how we undo the damage and put better boundaries on the court.
posted by interogative mood at 9:20 AM on June 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 9:20 AM on June 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Guess what other criminal justice right is about to be on the chopping block: right to counsel!
I think the sixth amendment has something to say about that.
posted by smidgen at 10:01 AM on June 29, 2022
Well, egg on my face, I shoulda looked this up before I commented. I was not aware of a recent decision:
Link.
posted by smidgen at 10:06 AM on June 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
Link.
posted by smidgen at 10:06 AM on June 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
When assessing the impact of this, it seems relevant to me that most cases do not actually go to trial. For someone spending six months in jail pre-trial inadmissability is not going to be much help; for the cop who arrested him there's not much of a downside.
This is definitely a more accurate assessment of what’s bad about this decision. Though I’m not clear on to what extent or for how long the right to sue in this situation was widely recognized in the first place? I also agree that the justifying principle for the decision, that it’s not “really” a constitutional right, is a bad precedent in itself.
posted by atoxyl at 12:37 PM on June 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
This is definitely a more accurate assessment of what’s bad about this decision. Though I’m not clear on to what extent or for how long the right to sue in this situation was widely recognized in the first place? I also agree that the justifying principle for the decision, that it’s not “really” a constitutional right, is a bad precedent in itself.
posted by atoxyl at 12:37 PM on June 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
@smidgen
I mean, look at the text of the Fourth Amendment, and look at the kinds of warrants that get issued and the kinds of searches that have been held admissible. The plain text of the Constitution is not always a reliable guide to how the Supremes will decide. And that is without taking into account to utter shamelessly motivated reasoning the current bunch stoops to.
Also keep in mind, effective right to counsel is a quite recent thing. 60 years ago, if you got busted in Florida and you weren't facing the death penalty, you paid for you lawyer or did without. That's what we'll be going back to.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 5:03 PM on June 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
I think the sixth amendment has something to say about that.The Sixth Amendment means what the Supremes say it means, and the Supremes have shown that they will say whatever nonsense is required to get the decision they want, today.
I mean, look at the text of the Fourth Amendment, and look at the kinds of warrants that get issued and the kinds of searches that have been held admissible. The plain text of the Constitution is not always a reliable guide to how the Supremes will decide. And that is without taking into account to utter shamelessly motivated reasoning the current bunch stoops to.
Also keep in mind, effective right to counsel is a quite recent thing. 60 years ago, if you got busted in Florida and you weren't facing the death penalty, you paid for you lawyer or did without. That's what we'll be going back to.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 5:03 PM on June 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
I think people are more pushing back on the posts that are like, "this is no big deal, nothing really is happening, just vote" No real strategy there either.
posted by Iax at 9:44 AM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Iax at 9:44 AM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I am seeing a recurring message here on Metafilter, and I'd like to make a general call to my fellow Mefites to stop it, because I'm concerned that it is both unkind and going to achieve the opposite effect from its intent.
I think this belongs in metatalk, if it belongs anywhere. Personally, I find this kind of policing of how other users ought to feel about the present times offensive.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:31 PM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think this belongs in metatalk, if it belongs anywhere. Personally, I find this kind of policing of how other users ought to feel about the present times offensive.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:31 PM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think this belongs in metatalk, if it belongs anywhere. Personally, I find this kind of policing of how other users ought to feel about the present times offensive.
Maybe it does belong in MetaTalk. It happens a lot around here.
posted by hippybear at 6:03 PM on July 2, 2022
Maybe it does belong in MetaTalk. It happens a lot around here.
posted by hippybear at 6:03 PM on July 2, 2022
In '96, as a foreign undergrad student in Iowa, from Canada, I was apprehended, searched, and arrested for possession of 'el marijuana' and I was never Mirandized even though I spent the night in jail, that initial hearing thing, and had a court summons at a later date.
Courts didn't care, lawyer said "that isn't a thing."
posted by porpoise at 8:41 PM on July 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Courts didn't care, lawyer said "that isn't a thing."
posted by porpoise at 8:41 PM on July 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, they've only ever had to give a Miranda warning before questioning in a custodial interrogation. If they find pot on your person, they don't need a statement to convict, so they don't bother with a Miranda warning and there's nothing saying they have to.
The problem with the doctrine has always been that the point at which an encounter becomes custodial can be very fuzzy since it hinges on a person's subjective sense of whether they can walk away at their pleasure.
posted by wierdo at 1:30 AM on July 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
The problem with the doctrine has always been that the point at which an encounter becomes custodial can be very fuzzy since it hinges on a person's subjective sense of whether they can walk away at their pleasure.
posted by wierdo at 1:30 AM on July 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older not (yet) sponsored by Apple | Close up they are sensual, huge, fragrant, warm... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:37 AM on June 28, 2022 [3 favorites]