In a column in today's USA Today, a reporter discusses the fairness of the Kobe Bryant case. The column has one particular paragraph I thought interesting:

"There seemed to be a rush to judgment by the sheriff's department in securing the warrant to arrest Bryant. The player, according to court records, never had his Miranda rights read. And Dan Loya, one of the detectives who interviewed Bryant for 75 minutes, did so with a tape recorder concealed inside his shirt pocket. (The judge ruled last month that a portion of Bryant's statement was admissible as evidence.)"

Anyone want to comment?

The reporter has not attended a TDCAA seminar to learn that a non-custodial statement does not require warnings or that only one party to a conversation needs to consent to the recording, and that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at a jail!

Did you really expect the reporter to have attended one of those seminars, or to be familiar with Stansbury as well as Miranda before attacking the police?

No, it was my (apparently) feeble attempt at humor. However, I do not think we should excuse ignorance when a reporter chooses his topic and observations to make in a column and makes mistakes in doing so.

What did the SO's supposed "rush to judgment" have to do with the case being dismissed? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

I've heard of lazy reporters, but this one is even too lazy to come up with his own descriptor (or is "rush to judgment" applicable to all professional athletes' investigations?). But he did get one thing right:

"Here's my guess: There will be no civil trial. Bryant will write a Shaq-sized check."

I love that the only accurate statement in the paragraph is enclosed in paragraphs. It's like we have to whisper the truth. Kind of like the Wizard behind the curtains: pay no attention to this.

Personally, I think if more TV-watching defendants think that they can say whatever they want if no warnings are read, the better!

I want my OFFICERS to understand the law on custodial interrogation. If the masses think that their non-custodial comments will be protected, that's their problem.

So no, don't shoot the messenger. Heck, he may be a defendant someday, and he'll come to wish he'd done better research.