Cops should not have to be mirandized especially regarding their actions while on duty. They're expected to know peoples rights when they're enforcing the law, therefore they should know their own. Marshals should not have to FOIA but they should definitely be redacting info that isn't important to the case at hand before admitting to evidence. Part of the wrongdoing of the officer was the denial of a valid FOIA request and editing of police documents.
@@ace3589 it had command statements that both command members at the time talked to angel and decided against removing or redacting they decided let it be as it is evidence. People are kinda confused why it’s being fought against so hard it’s because their Garrity warning right so anything Ryker admitted to command can be used. The main issue is not necessarily the statements command made it’s the fact the lawyer representing Ryker did something wrong according to Ryker statement and is subject to be prosecuted if more evidence was found based on rykers testimony. It could be considered malpractice and accomplice to evidence tampering. The whole point of the lawyers argument is to defend themself which means they shouldn’t be involved in the case as they have committed a crime. I can very much see Ryker case if his lawyers don’t step down be a mistrial and the lawyers bar removed regardless Angel gave them the rope to see if they hang themselves as she would rather not remove the lawyers and have a conversation telling them they can’t do that. But Roman is roman and it’s great to see the dumbass hurt himself
Miranda Rights are read to anyone no matter of race, religion, title, or affiliation. Thats the whole point of them....under those rights all are equal no matter who you are.
@@YeetusYeet73 you are stupid the Key point to Miranda Rights is that when a person IS UNDER POLICE CUSTODY. I think an officer or ex-officer who is making a statement whilst never being arrested is in police custody.
@@YeetusYeet73 only under certain conditions. If he wasn’t detained or in a form of custody then he didn’t have to be mirandized according to the Supreme Court.
The marshals are there to police the police. They shouldn't add things to make it more difficult for them to investigate corrupt cops because then those corrupt cops will take advantage of those systems to delay any investigation on them. But I do believe there should be guidelines as to what they can do and when they can do it. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure you don't need to read someone there rights if you're taking documents with someone's written statement on them. Since I'm pretty sure you only do that before an arrest and before you question them, and a written statement in a police document does not fall under that.
The report was used against Ryker because he tried to edit the report to improve his situation. Does that change the fact as to why it was used and there for admissible? Either way im here for whatever RP.
They're talking about an internal command report. The report Ryker modified was a different report associated with the case he was working on. He would not have had access to the report they're discussing.
Didn't the pd try pushing a law when they forget to read your your rights they basically where saying if you've been arrested or are known to know your rights like a lawyer/cops ?
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00:15 *🚗 Nino is invited to discuss sensitive issues in a car ride, signaling a serious and private conversation.* 00:00:43 *📄 The court case, People vs. Cohen Riker, involves an internal command report submitted as evidence, raising questions about its admissibility.* 00:01:24 *📋 The report contains disciplinary actions and statements that may not have been properly FOIA'd, sparking concerns about legal violations.* 00:02:16 *🛡️ The marshals’ authority over internal police documents is questioned, especially regarding civil rights and transparency.* 00:04:07 *🚨 The admissibility of Cohen Riker's statement is in doubt due to possible Miranda rights violations, complicating the case further.* 00:05:01 *⚖️ The marshals' heavy-handed approach is critiqued, potentially leading to legal issues and undermining police morale.* 00:06:46 *📝 A policy or legislation is suggested to regulate the FOIA process between departments, ensuring proper channels are followed.* 00:07:25 *💼 Concerns about the marshals' power highlight the need for a more structured approach to handling internal police documents.* 00:11:02 *🧠 Nino feels overwhelmed by the complexities of the situation, indicating the challenges of navigating bureaucratic and legal intricacies.* 00:12:43 *💰 Discussion about seized cash in evidence lockers suggests a need for legislation to redirect funds to the state budget after a statute of limitations.* 00:15:10 *📜 Nino emphasizes the importance of explicit legislation to handle seized assets, reducing the need for court arguments and clarifying procedures.* 00:17:13 *🔍 There's a push for transparency and accountability regarding seized money, with proposed legislation allowing appeals within 30 days.* 00:19:07 *💼 The conversation touches on the lack of tax regulation for various transactions, hinting at the potential for civil forfeiture laws.* 00:25:01 *📊 Nino discusses the tight state budget and the impact on police operations, aiming to find ways to ensure adequate compensation for officers.* 00:28:48 *💡 Suggestions are made to offset costs, such as subsidizing repairs and food, to maintain police efficiency despite budget constraints.* 00:31:13 *🏛️ The budgetary challenges with the state are highlighted, as is the need for clear incentivization for police services.* 00:29:44 *💰 The conversation indicates a need for strategic financial planning to navigate the fluctuating budget and its impact on operations.* 00:30:22 *🚔 Police pay rates are discussed, with plans to increase them to improve morale and support officers amid budgetary issues.* 00:30:58 *🔄 The idea of ticketing as a revenue stream is introduced, showing creative solutions to budget constraints.* Made with HARPA AI
This is what happens when you don’t talk to the people involved and get outside people to say what they think when they don’t even know what happen. What happen was bell wanted to go to angel Ruby and viv made statements in the report and went to angel about the report bell took as it was now evidence of a crime that had been committed by not just Ryker but the lawyer. So yes angel could use the report and viv and Ruby decided against removing statements as the report was evidence. The reality is viv and Ruby shouldn’t have made comments once Ryker admitted to the crime and left that report just his statement. Nino is also a control freak and the marshal will not let him have power so attempting to limit them from interacting is his goal, but he can’t as they didn’t do anything wrong or outside the view per legislation.
More appropriate action would be for a subpeona for all records they are seeking to use as evidence, and any edits that are tracked after the subpeona is presented until it is turned over could then be considered as potentially obstructive to the case.
Multiple inferences have to be made but even IRL if you have a drug house and large sums of cash in that house the inference can be made IRL that the money is involved with those drugs in some way.
idk if im getting this wrong, but the pd want a heads up call or a foyar recuest to an investgation for a pd cover up in a case of pd adultering documents?
