The GOP members found that Pelosi repeatedly failed to implement necessary improvements to the Capitol’s security system. //

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shoulders much of the blame for the security breakdown at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a preliminary report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis determined.

The Capitol Police (USCP) were half-staffed on Jan. 6, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms denied multiple requests for National Guard assistance from the Pentagon and the USCP Chief in the days leading up to Jan. 6, officers were poorly equipped and had insufficient riot shields and helmets, and they were never trained to handle a riot even after the riots of 2020, the investigation shows, according to Banks.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.” //

In his concurring opinion, Alito slammed dissenting Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor for bringing up irrelevant statistics to try and justify restricting Americans’ consitutional rights.

“Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have
occurred in recent years?” Alito asked. “Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?”

Alito also questioned how the dissenting justices “account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?”

“The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator,” he noted. //

Alito also noted in his concurring opinion that “The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City.”

And since “ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack,” they shouldn’t be stopped from carrying a gun for self defense in crime-ridden cities in states such as New York.

“Some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury,” Alito noted. “Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.”

What the court ruled was that violating the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional violation that will get you into court with a “§1983” claim, but the Miranda warning is not the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, two separate trial judges admitted Tekoh’s voluntary statement into evidence knowing there was no Miranda warning. That, right there, should tell you that this case is really about expanding the scope of §1983 for litigation and has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment.

Miranda rests on a pragmatic judgment about what is needed to stop the violation at trial of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. That prophylactic purpose is served by the suppression at trial of statements obtained in violation of Miranda and by the application of that decision in other recognized contexts. Allowingthe victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages under §1983 would have little additional deterrent value, and permitting such claims would cause many problems.

So the courts reduced it to simplicity itself: Miranda became only required in situations of “custodial interrogation”. That meant the suspect had to PHYSICALLY be in custody when the interrogation occurred for the courts to feel the overwhelming presence of the state was inherently coercive. There could still be questions involved regarding whether or not a person was considered physically in custody, and to a great extent they relied on ‘reasonable man’…. i.e. would a reasonable man observing the circumstance objectively think the suspect was in custody? If not, police were free to ask anything they wanted-to. Spontaneous statements were also admissible.

Clearly ‘custody’ obtained if the officer said the magic words, “You’re under arrest”. It would also obtain if the officer physically restrained the person before asking questions, and it may even obtain if the person was in a police station when being questioned. For this reason, any time I questioned someone at the police station, I had them sign a document that said they were in the police station of their own volition and were free to leave at any time and say nothing to me at all. It also said if that situation changed, they would be further advised of their rights at the time it did. This is a common practice in police investigations and is known as a Behelor admonishment. //

The idea that police can be sued for failing to Mirandize when there is no requirement they do so is ridiculous. If you don’t want to have police be able to do their jobs… just defund them. We’ve all seen where that leads.