SPORIS
THE BATTALION
may
i deal
Id Sky Sports News,
am’s father, Ted,
here he would like his
iy-
int him to stay ti
er United,” he said,
am’s future has tk
of speculation foi
Another Spanish cl,
sirid, and the Mat
AC Milan and
male also have beet
a possible sale,
am has helped
er United win six of
league titles in 11
nd the Europeat
is Cup in 1999. He
at Manchester Uniled
t 13 years, incluif
earns.
Tuesday’s announce
:kham had told the
eles Times he was
stay at Manchesiei
t had never said he
lain there for good,
m is paid a reported
a week at Manchesiei
e is worth $79.5 rail-
■ding to a recent stir-
tain’s richest people
iday Times. Hehasa
endorsements and is
i billboards and mag
rs around the world,
deal goes through,
could face his old
3 when Manchester
iys Barcelona in an
game in
ia.
;lish club’s U.S.tom
enhancing its profile
y where soccer takes
to other sports,
n is getting even
ility of late in the
m “Bend it Like
with the title based
emark ability tocwl
k over a wall of
h Manchester
soccer’s wealthiesi
nnot afford to bit)
hout trying to hf
oks.
will always he
a team like Mat
ckham has said,
i has dismissed sue-
of a rift with
United manager
son. Ferguson left
the bench several
:ason. In the locker
one loss, Ferguson
xer shoe that acci-
ick Beckham above
what many people
me and Sir Alex
e’s been a father
,” Beckham said.
aring
3y
ntroduce their new
: a surprise.
Mexander and gen-
e near the Rockets'
m.
s ready to succeed
ing his agent com-
n assistant coaches
“We had a lot of
opening was trying
as assistants, then
have a first-round
caching position is
issistant with the
with the Knicks,
ik there’s a lot of
; might be in the
under contract. 1
econd-round draft
r contract through
•thella Harrington
coach who gives
improve the team
/ery intense guy.
i and to win and
that on the other
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Wednesday, June 11,
Read him his rights
Police not fully complying with Miranda rights, violating Fifth Amendment
L ast month. Supreme Court
justices agreed to hear
Missouri v. Seibert, a 2002
case involving the use of Miranda.
Made famous in crime-related tel
evision programs and in movies,
Miranda is the reading of a sus
pect’s rights, typically beginning with: “You
have the right to remain silent.” The issue at
question is whether police have the privilege of
interrogating suspects before reading them their
rights, or “Mirandizing” them, a privilege that
undermines the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme
Court must uphold Missouri’s lower court rul
ing which declared this type of interrogation
illegal and unconstitutional.
The case involves a woman, Patrice Seibert,
who was accused of setting a fire to cover up
the accidental death of a 17-year-old male. She
was initially convicted of trying to cover up the
death, but it was discovered by the defense that
police intentionally and unlawfully failed to
read her rights to her properly.
According to the Missouri Attorney
General’s Frontline Report, a police newsletter,
“The murder conviction was reversed and her
confession suppressed because it was obtained
illegally and in a direct attempt to avoid the
Miranda requirements.” It is horrific to think
that police officers, attempting to encourage
convictions, would willfully violate federal law
and the Fifth Amendment, which gives people
the right to not incriminate themselves.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happen-
ning in Missouri.
Siebert’s interrogating officer testified that
he had been trained to seek confessions before
reading suspects their rights, a training tech
nique that is not only unethical, but illegal.
“The investigator feared if he Mirandized the
defendant, she might not volunteer informa
tion,” according to the Frontline Report. What
this means is that some police officers clearly
don’t want suspects to be fully
aware of their rights as U.S. citi
zens. This can only be described
as a corruption of justice.
There is a loophole that many
police officers use to avoid
Miranda requirements, but it is
extremely problematic. Suspects being con
fronted by police sometimes immediately
incriminate themselves, either through speech
or actions, or waive their Miranda rights by
claiming to know them already. These
impromptu confessions, called “excited utter
ances,” are admissable in court, according to
The Springfield News-Leader.
However, how many criminals actually know
their Miranda rights word-for-word? Likely,
very few. And it is easy to see how someone
who is not of sound mind and body could con
fess to a crime he did not committ, simply so
police can have a conviction. Miranda rights
must be read completely before any actual
interrogating takes place, regardless of these
“excited utterances.” Police must learn to seek
justice over convictions.
When this loophole fails police, there is
another to turn to. Missouri police have been
using a multi-step Miranda process consisting
of an interrogation, the reading of Miranda and
then another interrogation. According to the
Frontline Report, “The technique assumes the
second Mirandized confession can be used
because it comes after a Miranda warning.”
However, this assumption is false and ille
gal. Seeking a confession before a suspect is
aware of his rights, only to read his rights to
him and again seek the confession, is highly
unethical and unprofessional. One may never
know how many of these illegally-obtained
confessions have gone unchallenged and
resulted in convictions. Why are police inten
tionally breaking the law and using illegal
interrogation techniques? These actions, by
anyone’s definition, are criminal.
We live in a country where police are given
excessive power and authority, privileges they
sometimes abuse, as in the case of Seibert. As
such, America must work to keep its system of
checks and balances in place and not allow
police to define federal law as they see fit.
Willfully obtaining illegal confessions does
more to encourage crime than to avert it, and
police officers, just like everyone else, must be
held accountable.
George Deutsch is a senior
journalism major.
Graphic by Radhika Thirunarayanan.
GEORGE DEUTSCH
FCC rulings only
obstruct capitalism
I magine yourself
as the owner of
a local movie
theater. One night
you awake to a
phone call; a friend
tells you to drive
down to your business immedi
ately because you have to wit
ness what is happening for
yourself. Taking his advice,
you drive over and see that
somebody else is selling tick
ets to the late-night mob. The
stranger stationed at your box
office counts the huge wad of
cash he has just acquired and,
seeing you, smiles and hands
you one of the bills he’s col
lected, pocketing the rest.
What would you do in this
situation? Call the police?
What if they tell you that they
knew about it — in fact, they
encouraged it, saying, “You
weren’t using the theater at the
time, why should you have
exclusive rights to it? He paid
you, it’s legal, and we’re not
going to do a thing about it.”
As crazy as it sounds, this
fictional transaction is happen
ing to the Bell companies, and
the criminal perpetrator is the
Federal Communications
Commission.
The Bell companies, com
posed of BellSouth Corp., SBC
Communications, Verizon
Communications and Qwest
Communications, have been
tinder federal mandate for the
past seven years to lease parts
of their systems to competitors,
according to The Associated
Press. But not only must they
rent out their lines, towers and
equipment to major companies
such as’Sprint and AT&T —
they must do so at undisclosed
discounted rates. Because their
competitors didn’t have to put
in the thousands of dollars to
survey sites or construct lines
and towers, this allows them to
undercut Bell prices.
The Telecommunications
Act of 1996 is
the loathsome
decree that
forced this leas
ing in a mockery
of free trade and
property rights
— core values of the capitalist
economy our freedom and
prosperity rest on. Earlier this
year, Verizon sought deregula
tion to push for new invest
ment and advancement in high
speed Internet and local phone
services. With hat in hand, the
industry giant pleaded with the
government to allow it to do
its job. For the third time since
the act came into existence, the
FCC turned Verizon away.
“In the long haul,”
remarked Tom Tauke, senior
vice president of public policy
and external affairs for
Verizon. “These rules hurt
consumers, who are denied the
benefits of robust competition
and more investment; they
hurt workers, who continue to
lose their jobs in the commu
nications industry; and they
hurt the economy by thwarting
the investment and innovation
in networks that can deliver
great advancements in produc
tivity to our nation.”
Why would the government
tie ropes that bind the legs of
prosperity and progress? The
Telecommunications Act of
1996 is a more subtle type of
antitrust law, which claims to
promote competition and elim
inate the possibility of an
emerging monopoly through
government intervention. A
common misconception is that
the government has to protect
its citizens from big business
through the prevention of
monopolies. This is complete
ly unnecessary in a capitalist
economy. Any company that
manages to drive away compe
tition cannot set prices as high
as it likes. Were a company
foolish enough to raise prices
excessively, a free society
allows for the emergence of
new competition that is
encouraged to charge a fair
price, meeting immediate suc
cess by providing a cheaper
alternative to the abusive
monopoly.
Even if such a built-in safe
guard did not exist, one must
ask about the cost of enacting
anti-monopoly legislation.
Would it be moral to let the
government intervene on a sit
uation in fear that a company
that has sole reign in a market
will act oppressively? In his
essay, “Antitrust,” Alan
Greenspan writes, “The effec
tive purpose, the hidden intent,
and the actual practice of the
antitrust laws in the United
States have led to the condem
nation of the productive and
efficient members of our soci
ety because they are produc
tive and efficient.”
America boasts the fact that
it is a country in which its citi
zens are free to work hard to
achieve their goals, dreams
and happiness. Is there some
sort of “fine print” on the
Declaration of Independence
that says the pursuit of liberty
and happiness exists for every
body but a successful busi
nesses? Instead, it says only a
few lines afterward “That
whenever any Form of
Government becomes destruc
tive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or
to abolish it.”
Evil is not to be tolerated
in a just society, and if our
government allows economic
success to be a punishable
offense, it is the public’s priv
ilege and obligation to alter
the government by pushing
for the abolishment of such
legislation.
Mike Walters is a junior
psychology major.
MIKE WALTERS
Cell ban ridiculous
(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES — For having
such a laid-back reputation, California likes to
pass legislation that is oddly restrictive of a
laid-back lifestyle.
It all started with the infamous ban on
smoking in restaurants and bars, which was
signed into law in 1994 and took full effect Jan.
1, 1998. The bill, which forces bar patrons to
dash outdoors to get their nicotine fix, wasn’t
intended to criminalize smoking, but instead to
protect bar and restaurant employees from lung
cancer and other respiratory illnesses. Though
it clearly was well intended, the bill gave those
individuals who were allegedly used to not
having a care in the world something to worry
about: Losing a prized bar spot to a pesky non-
smoker. Definitely an inconvenience.
And to make matters worse, the imposition
on an individual’s freedom to light up became
contagious. Delaware followed suit last year
and approved a comparable ban, and New York
Gov. George Pataki signed a similarly stringent
anti-smoking bill into law in late March.
I suppose that the whole bandwagon effect
left the California legislature feeling empowered.
Copying a law passed in New York last
June, California has officially subscribed to the
Pataki school of thought that progressive legis
lating necessitates lots of rules.
Recent legislation written by Assemblymen
Dario Frommer, D-Glendale and Joe Simitian,
D-Palo Alto, would ban drivers from talking
on their hand-held cell phones while cruising
down California streets. The bill passed the
Assembly in a 49-27 vote and will head to the
Senate for a vote this week.
Now honestly, gentlemen, do you really think
this is going to work? How else do you expect
us to entertain ourselves while sitting solo on the
freeway in bumper-to-bumper rush-hour traffic?
Or to make last-minute reservations on the way
to dinner? Or for the directionally challenged, to
get ourselves “un-losf ’ in the labyrinth of
California streets by opting for the most efficient
possible remedy: Phoning a friend. And most
importantly, do you know how much self-control
it takes to ignore a ringing cell phone?
The apparent intention of the legislation is
to reduce a potential distraction to the already
stress-laden activity of driving across town. So
why isn’t the legislature seeking to regulate
other typical distractions? Should the
Assembly give consideration to a bill fining
drivers for applying mascara while waiting at a
traffic light? Or a ban on changing the radio
station or fiddling with the CD player?
In March, the California Highway Patrol
published statistics on the alleged causes of
491,000 accidents that occurred last year. Of
the 5,677 accidents blamed on distracted driv
ers, cell phones contributed to 11 percent,
while a whopping 67 percent fell into a catego
ry called “other,” which included day-dream
ing and reading street signs. For some reason,
placing a ban on day-dreaming may be diffi
cult. Regulating the act of reading street signs
would just be counterintuitive.
Those members of the Assembly opposing
the ban on cell phones rather accurately
labeled the proposition as one characteristic of
a “nanny government.” The government
should assume that the majority of California
drivers are competent. Most of those on the
road technically passed the state driving test
(or another state’s driving test) and are official
ly licensed to drive. If the government can
entrust individuals to handle heavy machinery
like an automobile, these same licensed indi
viduals will no doubt be able to safely operate
smaller, less intractable devices, such as cell
phones. This ability applies even while driving
— walking and chewing gum at the same time
is not that difficult of a feat.
The California Senate will hopefully consid
er the full ramifications of imposing the ban on
hand-held cell phones before approving the bill
and attempting to baby-sit California drivers.
Call your senator and tell him or her what
you think — and do it from your car.
Ashley Schneider is a columnist
at the University of Southern California.