|
That statement is not binding on lower courts for two reasons. First is was a plurality opinion. A plurality opinion means that the majority of the court did not adopt that position. Justice Souter wrote the only part of that decision that resulted in a majority opinion.
Second, that statement arose in the context of a civil action. It was not the result of of a review of an decision by a lower court to exclude or not exclude evidence. Thus, Thomas' statement are non binding dicta - statements that are not necessary to the disposition of the case, and thus need not be followed by lower courts.
What you are advocating is an intentional disregard of the law by law officers - to deliberately fail to provide a prisoner with a Miranda warning in order to attempt to obtain admissions without the prisoner's knowledge of his rights and without assistance of counsel. I would expect a court faced with such intentional illegal conduct by the law enforcement personnel to give the exclusionary rule its full scope, including the exclusion of the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|