Miranda rights

[gettysburg]

Can any of the Leo's on the forum give some insight on the
SCOTUS ruling about a suspect having to verbally invoke
their right to remain silent?

 

[NKJ nut]

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cp1969]

Why would you have to say, "I'm going to remain silent now", when by simply remaining silent it kind of goes without saying........even I can figure out that if someone's not talking, they're silent.

Unless they happen to pass gas in a big way. Then everybody has a good laugh.

 

[kraigwy]

It really dosnt mean a whole lot, since you still have the right to clam up at any time you wish.

I retired in 94, even then we had to (while reading the rights) inform them they could clam up at any time.

I dont see the big deal or change with the New ruling.

 

[nicky4968]

Questioning must stop when you invoke the right. If you are capable of speech, and just sit there like a bump on a log, they can question you, taunt you, pull on your heartstrings, or anything else they want to do.
(I know of some FEW instances of such conduct with juveniles.)

 

[PDL]

Questioning must stop when you invoke the right. If you are capable of speech, and just sit there like a bump on a log, they can question you, taunt you, pull on your heartstrings, or anything else they want to do.
(I know of some FEW instances of such conduct with juveniles.)

You hit it right on the head, if you say, silent or lawyer, all interrogation is supposed to stop. If you just ignore it all, it can keep going.

 

[Chili Vega]

Miranda warnings advise you have the right to remain silent. This is based on the 5th amendment. It does not say the cops must stop questioning you. It just means anything you say after invoking your rights can not be used in court (except to impeach you, Miranda does not allow someone to lie under oath). Many agencies have a policy or train their cops to stop asking questions. That is usually a good policy but not always the best for the situation.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

The 5th amendment gives one the ABSOLUTE right to remain silent.
Experience indicates that very few people however have the ABILITY to remain silent
Most times this trumps the 5th.

 

[Chili Vega]

The 5th amendment gives one the ABSOLUTE right to remain silent.
Experience indicates that very few people however have the ABILITY to remain silent
Most times this trumps the 5th.

ABSOLUTELY!!

 

[gettysburg]

The 5th amendment gives one the ABSOLUTE right to remain silent.
Experience indicates that very few people however have the ABILITY to remain silent
Most times this trumps the 5th.

What I was was refering to in the op is the new
SCOTUS majority ruling (June 1 2010).
From Justice Sotomayor, "Criminal suspects must now
unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent, which
counterintuitively requires them to speak. At the same
time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived
their rights even if they have given no clear expression
of their intent to do so."

 

[sigp220.45]

The SCOTUS decision comes from a case where a suspect being questioned in a murder case was read his rights but wouldn't talk other than a grunt or short statement. The cops kept at him, and one of them asked if he believed in God. The guy teared up, and the cop asked him if he asked God for forgiveness after he "shot that boy down". The kid nodded and said he did. A conviction followed.

The appeal said he had invoked his right to remain silent by not saying anything, and that the confession was not admissible. The court disagreed, saying if he didn't want to talk he could have said so. Makes sense to me.

If you're in that position and say anything to the effect of "I want a lawyer" or "I don't want to talk to you guys", the next sounds you'll hear will be pens clicking, notebooks closing, chairs pushing back from the table, and "take this fella back to his cell".

 

[Dennis The B]

Here are three great videos on the subject -

YouTube - Dont Talk to Police

YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

YouTube - In Praise of the 5th Amendment - part 3

 

[redlevel]

Without expressing an opinion on the current ruling, I would note that Civil Libertarians have been alarmed for many years about the erosion of the original Miranda ruling.

I would also note that we, as gun owners and defenders of 2nd amendment rights, should recognize that an individual's rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments are every bit as sacred and inviolable as our rights under the 2nd.

 

[Cyrano]

Just what we need; an administration bent on legislating guns out of our hands and a lessening of our civil liberties.

 

[viceunit]

When I conduct a custodial interrogation prefaced by Miranda I don't ask the person if they want to answer any questions or if they want a lawyer. I ask them if they understand their rights. If they say they do I get to the questioning. If they clearly say that they don't want to answer questions or they want to talk to a lawyer, I am done. If they don't say either of those things I keep the questions coming. So, their mere silence or ambiguous comments is not a reason to stop questioning. In that context the ruling makes sense.

On the other hand, I have had some people who will not shut up. They are reminded, "You have the right to remain silent...please exercise that right!"

 

[smith revolver cop]

When I conduct a custodial interrogation prefaced by Miranda I don't ask the person if they want to answer any questions or if they want a lawyer. I ask them if they understand their rights. If they say they do I get to the questioning. If they clearly say that they don't want to answer questions or they want to talk to a lawyer, I am done. If they don't say either of those things I keep the questions coming. So, their mere silence or ambiguous comments is not a reason to stop questioning. In that context the ruling makes sense.

On the other hand, I have had some people who will not shut up. They are reminded, "You have the right to remain silent...please exercise that right!"

In most of the places I've worked, the 'official' Miranda warning is followed by a waiver- in order for the waiver to be valid (and therefore allow questioning to continue), the suspect has to acknowledge that he/she understands their rights, and that he/she is willing to talk at that time.

 

[smith revolver cop]

The SCOTUS decision comes from a case where a suspect being questioned in a murder case was read his rights but wouldn't talk other than a grunt or short statement. The cops kept at him, and one of them asked if he believed in God. The guy teared up, and the cop asked him if he asked God for forgiveness after he "shot that boy down". The kid nodded and said he did. A conviction followed.

The appeal said he had invoked his right to remain silent by not saying anything, and that the confession was not admissible. The court disagreed, saying if he didn't want to talk he could have said so. Makes sense to me.

If you're in that position and say anything to the effect of "I want a lawyer" or "I don't want to talk to you guys", the next sounds you'll hear will be pens clicking, notebooks closing, chairs pushing back from the table, and "take this fella back to his cell".

Based on this description, it certainly sounds like the decision is neither pro-police nor anti-civil liberties... just clarifies that if you want to invoke your right to remain silent, you need to clearly express that. Makes sense to me. No real change to the Miranda precedent, and probably won't have much impact on most daily practices for cops.

 

[jppezz23]

Sotomayor is just another useless liberal on the SCOTUS .