Court Opinion

ID: 9528360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:18.525116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:48.042554
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Hunter, J.
Appellant, Shirley Maxine Goodloe, is in my opinion, in that category of persons which the United States Supreme Court especially intended to protect in its landmark decision, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602.
Unlike the hardened criminal, the repeater, or the recidivist, most of whom are at least as acquainted with their constitutional rights as the officers who apprehend them, appellant was an ordinary citizen lacking any working knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Under the circumstances in this case, appellant clearly depends upon exactly what the police officer tells her in asserting her right against self-incrimination. She has neither the prior experience nor the independent knowledge to do otherwise. The professional criminal by contrast has been exercising this right for many years, long before the pronouncements in Miranda. He has gained valuable knowledge of this and other constitutional rights from his own experiences as well as those of his professional associates in crime. It is, therefore, incumbent upon both law enforcement officers and the courts to insure that a suspect like the appellant in the case at bar, is apprised of her constitutional rights carefully and correctly. Otherwise we would reward those who have led a life of crime and penalize those whose ignorance of the law derives from their compliance with it.
Note. — Reported in 252 N. E. 2d 788