I highly doubt the police is out to frame people. Even they want to, they can't create eye witnesses or physical evidence.

Ever hear of Tulia, Texas?

  Thus, they say getting rid of Jackson makes sense because otherwise either  defendants in automatic appointment states would get lesser protection than those in states requiring a request, but applying the Jackson rule where no request has been made has no basis in the underlying doctrine and the "evil" sought to be remedied is both adequately protected by Edwards and Minnick  and outweighed by the countervailing interest in convicting the guilty.

  Alito's concurrence seems to serve no purpose other than yanking Stevens' chain for being inconsistent as to when stare decisis is important.

  Stevens probably would have been well advised to refrain from championing stare decisis so soon after agreeing Belton should be overruled and he also dances around the real reason why a bright-line rule such as Jackson is preferable.

  Suppression hearings on these issues generally have the cops on one side and the defendant (if he chooses to testify, othwerwise no fact witness) on the other. Case-by-case analysis of whether a waiver of counsel was voluntary is often entrely a matter of credibility and police officers will often  be able to fashion their testimony to avoid a finding a statement followed an involuntary waiver of counsel prior to interrogation because the only other witness will be the defendant.

  A bright line rule such as Jackson does serve, as Scalia notes, to prevent badgering. His sanguine off the cuff dismissal of the need for Jackson is non-existent because other rules trigger exclusion where badgering exists ignore the practical reality that is only true where coercion or badgering can be proven and the only evidence a deferndant has in most cases is his own testimony. with Jackson the questins to be answered were basically objective-- did the defendant have counsel and did the cops get him to talk without counsel.

  This decision is inviting cops to badger witnesses and then lie about it at the suppression hearing. Jackson served to eliminate the incentive to badger and because it did not require proof of involuntary waiver also eliminated the need for police to lie where Jackson applied. (Even a  single, polite and civil  request to have a represented defendant submit to questioning invoked the rule.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.

Even they want to, they can't create eye witnesses or physical evidence.