14 y/o Muslim student arrested for bringing "bomb" to school[It was a Clock]

[Tiberius]

All that means is that anything the kid says while in custody cannot be used against him in court.  It does nothing to prevent the cops from humiliating the kid which seems to have been their prime motivation.

I don't think it does Min. The wording specifically says that "[the child] is entitled to be accompanied by the child’s parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child’s attorney". The keyword there is "entitled". If Ahmed asked to phone his parents, or ask that his parents be with him, and they refused, they are violating that entitlement.

[Minimalist]

Yes, but what is the remedy, Tibs?  With Miranda if the cops do not read a person their rights then they are barred from using any statements made in subsequent court proceedings.  A minor questioned without parent or counsel would get the same protection but no one is going to fly into the interrogation room, kick open the door and shout "CEASE AND DESIST YOU DEMONS IN BLUE!"

Okay - a little poetic license there at the end.

[Tiberius]

No, but these rules are there usually so that after the fact, the police can be reprimanded. Anyone can at any time ignore a law, even if they are the police, and there's little that can be done at that particular point to stop them. However, once a law has been violated, the person (or in this case, the department) responsible can be investigated and charged with a crime.

Ahmed's rights will forever remain violated, nothing can change that, but courts exist to punish the people doing the violating, and potentially forcing the police to pay compensation to Ahmed for the violation. That's the remedy.

[Minimalist]

Yes, precisely.  The legal doctrine is called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

[/url]

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3][4] The term's first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree]
It does not do the subject of the arrest any immediate good but it does preclude law enforcement from acting upon anything they do learn as a result of their malfeasance. 

It is, in fact, such a serious blow to a criminal investigation that any cop who does it deserves to be reprimanded by his own side.  He just crapped all over the case if there were a case and that is what seems to be the situation in Dallas.  They knew there was no threat.  They were just busting this kid's balls.  Now, we can speculate on WHY they were busting his balls all we like but it is Texas and we have this:

They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: "Yup. That’s who I thought it was."

Somewhat prejudicial statement by the cop, there.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It does not do the subject of the arrest any immediate good but it does preclude law enforcement from acting upon anything they do learn as a result of their malfeasance. 

It is, in fact, such a serious blow to a criminal investigation that any cop who does it deserves to be reprimanded by his own side.  He just crapped all over the case if there were a case and that is what seems to be the situation in Dallas.  They knew there was no threat.  They were just busting this kid's balls.  Now, we can speculate on WHY they were busting his balls all we like but it is Texas and we have this:

^^That all assumes that the judge is willing to follow the rule about excluding such evidence. Since 1920, they have come up with dozens of ways to skirt that principle. Sometimes they are overturned on appeal, but just as often the appeals courts will use the deferential standard given to trial judges' decisions, when upholding a conviction on appeal, that the appellant essentially has to prove the jury was prejudiced in their decision by the tainted evidence (appeals courts love to hide behind the jury, when dodging issues like this). It's ridiculous and heartbreaking to read some of the cases. Spending about two hours on LexisNexus reading case law on the subject will make your skin crawl.

The Drug War, the "War on Crime", and the "War on Terror" have all combined to effectively eradicate the rights that our TV shows like to fantasize as still-extant, for the consumption of the Average Joe 'Murkan.

[Minimalist]

This is a 2011 Supreme Court case, on point, which any judge or appellate court would have to overcome.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile-jus...inors.html

The case the Court ruled upon involved a 13 year-old boy whom the police suspected of involvement with two burglaries. A police officer went to his school, removed him from class and placed him in a conference room with the door closed and two school administrators present.

The officer did not give the boy a Miranda warning or inform him that he could leave the room at any time prior to beginning the questioning. After the boy admitted to participation in the burglaries, however, the officer told the boy that he could refuse to answer questions and leave whenever he wanted. The boy stayed and provided further detail about the crimes.

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge improperly denied the boy's request to throw out the statements he made to police because he did not receive the proper Miranda notification. The Court recognized the fact that, because of their relative immaturity and lack of experience, children "cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults".
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile-jus...ftwt5.dpuf

Note that this was the customary 5-4 ruling with the 4 nazis voting to treat a 13 year old as a career criminal.  Typical.

[Cyberman]

PrezO did something cool today:

I can hear it now; some birther right wing nut will attempt to use this as evidence that President Obama is Muslim.

Yep:

The people understand that Obama asserts he is a Christian, but they just aren't buying it. Obama has done too many things to benefit Muslims to convince people that he is not one of them.

The latest example was extending an invitation to a Muslim student to come to the White House after he was detained for possessing what appeared to be a bomb. It turned out to be a clock that looked like a bomb.

Naturally, the Obama White House treated this as a case of so-called Islamophobia, when pictures of the device demonstrated that the care should have been taken and law enforcement should have been called. Obama refuses to identify Islamic terrorism as Islamic terrorism, but is quick to jump to conclusions about the supposedly anti-Islamic nature of the American people. This is the mark of someone who is either strongly sympathetic to Islam, or a Muslim himself.

http://barbwire.com/2015/09/19/obamas-muslim-identity/ (H/T FSTDT)

[Minimalist]

They are nothing if not predictable, Stim.

[SteelCurtain]

Yup. It was only a matter of time.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

This is a 2011 Supreme Court case, on point, which any judge or appellate court would have to overcome.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile-jus...inors.html

The case the Court ruled upon involved a 13 year-old boy whom the police suspected of involvement with two burglaries. A police officer went to his school, removed him from class and placed him in a conference room with the door closed and two school administrators present.

The officer did not give the boy a Miranda warning or inform him that he could leave the room at any time prior to beginning the questioning. After the boy admitted to participation in the burglaries, however, the officer told the boy that he could refuse to answer questions and leave whenever he wanted. The boy stayed and provided further detail about the crimes.

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge improperly denied the boy's request to throw out the statements he made to police because he did not receive the proper Miranda notification. The Court recognized the fact that, because of their relative immaturity and lack of experience, children "cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults".
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile-jus...ftwt5.dpuf

Note that this was the customary 5-4 ruling with the 4 nazis voting to treat a 13 year old as a career criminal.  Typical.

Note also that, had they administered a "proper Miranda warning", they could have thus interrogated him as though he was an adult criminal. Also note that it's implying that adults can be tricked into making statements without proper Miranda warnings; I don't feel like digging up the caselaw on it, but there are a few ways they can get around Miranda, nowdays.

As someone who had to wait through almost 6 1/2 years of appeals to reach an appeals court that would overturn my judge's improper inclusion of evidence (and other trial malfeasance), and am still  waiting for my day before the Supreme Court on an issue of denial of credit for pretrial incarceration toward my sentence, I'd say that it doesn't much matter what SCotUS says, as long as there are no major penalties for police and officers of the court who violate these basic rights "accidentally". And we're not even close to that.

Essentially, unless there is a public outcry like occurred in this case (thankfully!), it was just as likely as not that he'd have become another forgotten statistic in the insatiable machine that eats people's lives.