Ohio Supreme Court Rules No Miranda Rights if Questioned by Cops Outside Interrogation Room

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

Arrested man handcuffed hands at the back

Perhaps the state of Ohio should be renamed the Black Eye State instead of the Buckeye state, thanks to a recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court. The ruling, by a 6-1 super majority (apparently there is only one person left in Ohio who doesn’t want to completely punch Liberty in the eyeball), overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed evidence gained by police on the grounds that it was gathered through an interview in a police car with the defendant.

The ruling happened Wednesday, August 16th, 2017, and what it essentially means is that unless the police take you to a specific type of space – an interrogation room – and ask you enough questions (whatever that is, because the court doesn’t define it) they don’t have to bother reading your Miranda rights to you (you know, that whole “you have a right to an attorney” spiel we always see on cop shows that let us know someone is seriously arrested).

All they have to do is interview in a different space, like the front seat of a cop car, and voila, magic suddenly makes your Miranda rights LITERALLY disappear.

The case started in 2014 when a Cleveland Motorist almost hit an Ohio State Police Car. The cop jumped in his narrowly missed car and pulled the defendant over. He then ordered the defendant out of his car and into the front seat of his cop car. Here is where the patrolman began to interrogate the defendant.

Now, I don’t know about you, but common sense will tell you that being ordered into a police car kind of implies you are being detained and cannot leave. The one sole dissenter on the court (that one person who looked Liberty in the eye and said, nah, not gonna light you up today) pretty much said the same thing, which just goes to show you that not everyone who puts on those black robes suddenly gets a case of the derp (but maybe 5 out of 6 do).

This is the point where someone should be repeating those four out of five dentists approve slogans, only in this case, it’s five out of six black robed priests DON’T approve…of your liberty.

During the course of the interrogation, the friendly cop, who was a tad ticked his car almost got swiped by the defendant, got some information out of his target. The defendant admitted he had four mixed drinks at a wedding he had just come from (no, he wasn’t the groom).

The Chief Justice, Maureen O “Miranda, we don’t need no stinkin’ Miranda” Connor wrote that the defendant’s (and by extension, yours) Miranda Rights magically disappeared because he was only asked a few questions and he wasn’t handcuffed, as if handcuffed were the only prerequisite to feeling detained. I’m paraphrasing, but trust, me, my paraphrase is far more truthful of the nature of what she said than the bureaucratic doublespeak these black robed priests like to use.

The fact that this cop open carried, the fact that you were ordered to sit in the front seat of a police car, well, none of this would make any reasonable person feel as if they were being detained (except it would, and Mareen O “Miranda, we don’t need no stinkin’ Miranda” Connor knows it).

Once again, as reflected in a story I wrote JUST YESTERDAY, this goes to show you that words written on paper do not have the force to prevent those who claim to be bound by those words (to follow Rule of Law) from finding a way to legitimize the punching in the eye of Liberty because, at the end of the day, the chief job of the court is to protect the legitimacy of state authority, not you.

Click here to read the full ruling.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Paul Gordon of iState TV.

Paul Gordon is the editor of Istate.tv and co-host of numerous podcasts including VisPrivus, Lulzilla and Full Auto. He is also the publisher of a local digital newspaper, the Tioga Freedomist

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Phil_Ossifer

    This has no impact outside of Ohio and it is certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The question here is, what constitutes an arrest or an interrogation? AFAIC and IANAL and all that, but, says me, if a cop restricts your freedom of movement it is a custodial arrest and the Miranda should be read. I think the Miranda should be read to anyone stopped for even a traffic violation. In any custodial situation the magic word is LAWYER. Demand one and refuse to speak until one is available to advise you.

    • Arrow

      Lawyers are officers of the court. If you choose to use the services of a union card holder (BAR) you are considered to be an incompetent, and thereby become a ward of the court. Subject to whatever mischief they choose to prescribe. Best to not interact with a cop… at all. Their job is to find a reason to cite you, or arrest you. They have no responsibility to protect you (ref. Castle Rock v. Gonzalez). They are simply hired guns working as revenue agents for the State. Harry323 (below) is exactly correct. After all, it’s commerce. They are making an offer and there is no way to prove that you accepted their “offer” if you remain silent.

  • harry323

    It’s very simple, STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS as in STFU. Loose lips sink ships …

    • Annajblalock

      my roomate’s mother makes $75 per hour on the laptop. she has been out of work for five months. last month her pay-check was $16221 working on the internet five hours a day. ➤look at➤ this ➤site

  • tonye

    So this is what you have to do in Ohio then to keep your rights…

    If a cop tells you to do something, you refuse.
    The cops then beats the Holy $h!t out of you and takes you in.
    Then they take you into an interrogation room.

    At that point they MUST give you the Miranda Rights statements.

    See? It’s simple.

    In the meantime, avoid the place. My wife, however, can’t because she has to go there in business… but last time she took Lyft.

  • Regardless the unlawful and illegal actions of Nazi Storm Troopers, court rulings DO NOT MAKE FOR LAW, never have & never will. The process to make a law must go through Congress, Senate & The President NOT the DoJ.

    • Phil_Ossifer

      The Miranda requirement did not come from statutory law, it came from a Supreme Court decision (Miranda v. Arizona) in 1966. By your logic, then, there is no requirement for the Miranda warning in any setting because Congress didn’t specify it.

      • But they did specify it, just that they didn’t put a clause “You must repeat the rights for stupid people who forget them.”, it’s called the 5th Amendment.
        How many times did you hear convicted mafia and politicians “take the fifth” ? They knew their rights, they didn’t need a policeman to remind them.
        It is Logical, learn your rights & exercise them.

    • David E

      Dead wrong. The Constitution guarantees a jurisdiction of common law, and common law includes court opinions as law.

      • Mitchell

        Please cite those guarantees mentioned in the Const.

        • David E

          U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 2:

          “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States”

          I realize you’re next going to claim that’s a guarantee of “law” and not “common law” but you would still be wrong:


          • Mitchell

            You mis-interpet that section, if you will look you will find that the courts and all you mentioned have to abide and follow the laws enacted by Congress. If they don’t their decision is overturned by a higher court.

            Courts just can’t makeup a law on the whim and convict you of it, this is one of the reasons they have an appeal process

          • David E

            It is you who misinterprets.


            “Common law is a term used to refer to law that is developed through decisions of the court, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “case law,” or “case precedent,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common law varies depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases. To explore this concept, consider the following common law definition: Laws that are based on court or tribunal decisions, which govern future decisions on similar cases..”

            But that does not mean courts make up laws on a whim and convict you. In particular, we have a principle (handed down by judges) that you have to have fair notice of any crime’s particulars.

            So the principle you correctly set forth, that you cannot be convicted without violating a statute, is itself nowhere in statute or constitution–judges decided that should be the case.

            It is a court’s job to interpret the law. They are supposed to follow it unless it is unconstitutional.

          • Mitchell

            Your legal dictionary is correct in “Common Law” meaning, but when compared to statues/laws already established it has no bearing and isn’t even considered. Common Law isn’t even considered in a court of law anymore UNLESS there happens to be a case that has NEVER ruled upon by a court in this country, in a case like that they can and will go back to what might be called “Old English” law where “common law” was applied.

          • David E

            Wrong. Precedent (previous decisions, or caselaw) is applied in every case when relevant to arguments unless there isn’t any. The distinction you are searching for is common law vs. English common law. Common law is the usual jurisdiction our laws operate under, and is applied every day.

          • Mitchell

            It doesn’t matter what “common law” has to say concerning the Miranda Rights since this has already been covered by SCOTUS on more than 1 occasion. Or do you think common law over rules Supreme Court rulings?

          • David E

            If you could read, you’d know I have told you case;law, especially U.S. Supreme Ct caselaw, IS common law. Go troll someone else. You’re not trying to learn a thing.

          • Mitchell

            If you actually read the case rulings of SCOTUS concerning Miranda Rights you would know it applies ANYTIME you are questioned, common law has NO authority over SCOTUS rulings no matter what a lower court has to say concerning the matter.

            You need to understand all this was settled years ago, but it seems facts don’t matter to you.

          • David E

            I will leave you with the repeat: SCOTUS rulings ARE common law. And with that, you are blocked since you have nothing better to do than troll.

          • Mitchell

            Do you even understand what “common law” is? It’s ONLY used if the case presented to the presiding judge has NEVER EVER been before a court in the history of the legal system of the Anglo-Saxon courts, in a case like that the judge uses “common sense” to form a judgement. It was what was used to form the legal system we have NOW in this country. It does NOT dictate the standards used in our legal system or how things are ruled upon except in the basic sense.

            That is why we have statues and established laws and a court system .

      • EastTNPatriot
  • cmb

    so where does this put the chick finger raped by a cop on the street?

  • David E

    Actually, the opinion doesn’t state quite what the article says it does. It says that in these particular circumstances, i.e., being placed in the front seat of a police car, that it wasn’t enough to constitute a custodial interrogation. I disagree, but that’s neither here nor there.

    Nor is this news. The state of the law has been this way for a long time.

    • Phil_Ossifer

      What would have happened to the guy if he refused to get in the car with the cop? Could he be charged with “resisting arrest,” that favorite catch-all when they have nothing else to go on? Or some nebulous “failure to comply with a lawful order” which begs the question of whether the order was lawful.

      • David E

        Your guess is as good as mine. In the opinion, the court stated the officer testified that he was intending an arrest anyway, but they hold that this is not part of a “custodial interrogation” analysis because the suspect wouldn’t have known that. IMO that’s all a bunch of horseshit; it proves the guy was in custody in an objective manner rather than the subjective perception of non-lawyers. The dissent pointed out that most people would not feel free to leave when told to sit in a police car. Most would be afraid of precisely what you mention. I would think.

    • Mitchell

      The Miranda rights apply no matter the location a person is in, “you have the right to remain silent” does not mean/mention/say “only in certain locations”. It has also been ruled that all a person has to do is request/demand a lawyer and the questioning is to be stopped.

      • David E

        True, sort of. It’s not about location, per se. The question hinges on” custodial interrogation” i.e., whether a “reasonable person” would “feel free to leave.” Location plays a part in that test. For instance, the courts would be more likely to find questioning to be a “custodial interrogation” if it took place in a jail because no-one would “feel free to leave” if the interrogation is in a jail. But custodial interrogation can happen on the street, if for instance, you’ve been put in handcuffs. Custodial interrogation can happen anywhere. But the less controlled the environment, the more the police must do to make you feel it’s custodial.

        For instance, if a cop comes running by you on the street, and shouts out “which way did the bank robber go?” and you answer “I’m the bank robber,” your answer is admissible without a Miranda warning.

        But if he instead sees you, cuffs you, takes you down to the cop shop and says “You’re going down for a long time, Bucko,” he needs to read the warning before questioning you about robbing the bank.

        And it is true that no matter what sort of questioning it is, asking for a lawyer should stop interrogation without a lawyer present.

        I hope that helps your understanding.

        • Mitchell

          When you are “detained” for questioning you are tech. in custody (no you are NOT under arrest but instead “detained for questioning”, there is a difference) and you are NOT free to leave until the person questioning you says so or you are actually arrested and charges are pressed.

          At ANY time during that process ANYTHING you say can be used against you, they listen to ever word you say to find out if you are guilty.

          The LEO have 48-72 hours (depending on the state) to “detain/hold you” before actual charges are filed against you.

          Let me ask you a question: How many times were you questioned/detained/arrested where your Miranda Rights were ever a consideration?

          • David E

            Well, you can learn or you can think you know it all. I’d go read Miranda if I were you.

            As to your question, I have never had anything I told police used against me in a trial, so never. But I have had to deal with such issues hundreds of times.

          • Mitchell

            I’ve dealt with them quite enough thank you for several years off and on, since what you told them had no bearing on anything you did it didn’t really matter what you told them did it? But if you had told them anything they would indeed use it against you in court.

            A person learns real quick when confronted by a cop and they ask you a question, best thing you can say “you have no idea, you were not paying attention”. They WILL take what you say sometimes and twisted it around to make you look guilty, but when confronted in court it is easily thrown out.

          • David E

            Of course remaining silent is the best policy. I never said it wasn’t. But you clearly do not quite understand “custodial interrogation” as the courts use it.

            Having dealt with police distortions of what people say before the appellate courts many times, I strongly urge you to go read Miranda and its progeny because location does matter. It just does not define the issue per se; “custodial interrogation” does.

          • Mitchell

            Custodial interrogation is nothing but a fancy way of saying “detained for questioning” as the legal profession calls it. You seem to think just by using a different term makes it a different circumstance, it isn’t.

          • David E

            You really should go read the cases before you tell someone in the legal profession the terms the legal profession uses. Custodial interrogation is the term the courts use. You may think differently from watching TV but I assure you CSI is not a good legal education.

          • Mitchell

            It’s called 2 years of law school…..The courts have always spoken in terms not used by ordinary people and for your info I don’t watch the crap on TV.

            Maybe you should look up exactly what “custodial interrogation” actual means as in relation to “detained for questioning”.

            Custodial interrogation means that the individual is in jail or in custody, or otherwise not free to leave, and the police are asking them questions about a crime.

            In a detention, the police only need reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone. Reasonable suspicion means that there were objectively reasonable circumstances to suspect that the detained individual was involved in, or was about to be involved in a crime.

            In BOTH circumstances the person is not free to leave until the detaining officer agrees to release them, this varies from state to state but normally it is 48-72 hours before a person either has to be charged with a crime or released.

            All this has been settled by the Supreme Court and in BOTH circumstances the Miranda Rights apply, but the court also ruled that if a person has been detained/in custody and they say things that can be used against them BEFORE the Miranda Rights have been read to them then what they said can NOT be used in court UNLESS when a person admits to something then later on they were read their Miranda Rights and the officer asks the person what they said before was true and the person says it was true THEN it can be used in court, such as the case of MISSOURI v. SEIBERT.

            93 S. W. 3d 700, affirmed.

            Justice Souter, joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, concluded that, because the midstream recitation of warnings after interrogation and unwarned confession in this case could not comply with Miranda’s constitutional warning requirement, Seibert’s postwarning statements are inadmissible. Pp. 4—15.


          • David E

            It must be two years you were flunking lawschool, with a decision you were not worthy of the third year.

          • Mitchell

            Nah, it took that long before I saw that it was nothing but a bunch of crooks who found a legal way to screw people over and I wanted no part of that. So I went into computers and retired in less than 10 years.

          • David E

            So you just switched methods of stealing?

          • Mitchell

            I went to work

  • NoLookTour

    Some one needs to scratch her itch?

  • lee ho fook

    soon you won’t be allowed to ask for a lawyer…

  • SP_88

    This court ruling effectively changes nothing. Just because a cop hasn’t read you your rights, doesn’t mean that you don’t have any rights. You can still refuse to answer questions, you can still request a lawyer, and you can still plead the fifth.
    Or, you can blurt out the answers to whatever questions the cop is asking, and anything you say can and likely will be used against you in a court of law.

    • Laurence Almand

      Basic rule when dealing with modern cops: SAY NOTHING. Also, if possible, carry a small tape recorder and record everything. Cops are notorious liars, because they know they can get away with it.
      This is especially true in Civil Forfeiture cases (that is, legalized stealing).

      • SP_88

        Saying nothing is a good strategy, especially if it seems like the cop is trying real hard to find a reason to bust you for something.
        You can tell when a cop has not been meeting their quota, which supposedly doesn’t exist, but we all know it does, because they will pull you over and press really hard to find a reason to give you a ticket or arrest you.
        And because of the fact that courts, judges and even regular people seem to believe anything cops say, no matter how outrageous it might be, these cops are more likely to lie or fabricate evidence because they know they will get away with it.
        And there is pretty much zero oversight when it comes to civil asset forfeiture cases. When the cops rob you of your property on the side of the road, you can expect to spend more money trying to get it back than what you lost in the first place. And they know this. They know that nobody is going to spend $5000 to recover $3000. That’s why civil asset forfeiture is such an egregious violation of our rights. It is being abused by law enforcement agencies all over the country. And if the government really gave a shit about us, they would either outlaw the process or make it so innocent people didn’t have to pay anything to recover their money and property from these roadside bandits.
        These crooked police officers should be forced to prove guilt or return your money and property immediately without any cost to the people. But they won’t do it because it’s not about stopping crime, it’s about generating revenue. It’s outright theft, plain and simple.

        • Laurence Almand

          SP-88: You are correct. Read the good book GOVERNMENT OF WOLVES to find out the details of both police corruption, and abuse of innocent people.

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    When the scope and implementation of Constitutional Rights can be narrowed to one’s physical location, the Constitution has been effectively rendered useless. If you listen closely, you might be able to hear it gasping while our courts are choking the life from it.

    • Judithnford


      Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs416CashHomePlay/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ay126l..,…

  • John C Carleton

    Ohio has been a martial law state with the illusion of freedom for years, long as i can remember.

  • IQ140

    More unelected judges crapping on the Constitution. Never answer a cops questions. You have that Constitutional right.

  • Rollo Tomasi

    Pussy Man Kasich is Governor of ohio, And he is still campaigning for President Job everyday….