When is the right to remain silent not a right to remain silent? When you have to speak in order to claim it.
That is the bizarre paradox that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, enshrined in the Constitution on Monday.
Van Thompkins, a criminal suspect, was not interested in talking to the police, and he never affirmatively waived his right to remain silent. But the court ruled that by not saying clearly that he was exercising his right to remain silent, he in fact forfeited the right — and that a one-word answer he gave late in the questioning could be used against him.
The ruling flies in the face of the court’s long-standing insistence that a suspect can waive his rights only by affirmatively doing so. The majority said it was standing by Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark 1966 case that revolutionized police interrogations. But in fact, the court created yet another gaping hole in the Miranda doctrine — this one backed by what can be described as Alice in Wonderland logic.
All you have to do is say “Lawyer”
So now are the police going to explicitly state that “you must clearly state that you are using your right to stay silent verbally?”
We deserve this fascism for not standing up too it. I’m sick of trying to fight this alone.
As I said in Cage Match the best part is that the police no longer have to ask suspects to sign off that they understand/waive their rights. This is a huge step backwards.
“You have the right to remain silent, unless you waive such rights by remaining silent. If we feel there is imminent danger, however, we will not even bother to tell you of this right, which means we will always assume there is imminent danger and remain silent regarding your rights. Do you understand these rights that we are not reading to you?”
Maybe it’s the lawyer in me, but I see nothing wrong with this ruling. And Dave your headline makes no sense based on the article you linked.
Let’s look at the Mirana Warning:
The mistake the guy made was in not being silent.
The Officer asked him if he had prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting.
Instead of remaining silent, the guy answered “yes.”
According to the Miranda rule, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Thus, his statement was used against him in a court of law. What’s the fricken problem?
The guy had a right to remain silent, but spoke instead. Big fricken deal.
Classic mis-reporting by Uncle Dave once again.
Thompkins did talk and answered a few questions. He was not silent as Uncle Dave tries to imply. End of story.
But the Libs want to make this into another one of their fake outrages. They want the police to be turned into mind-readers.
#6 beat me to it. The guy heard his rights, acknowledged them and then later said something that could be used against him. For three hours he practiced his right to be silent. Then he waived that right by saying something.
Silence is neither an invocation nor waiving of anything. If he wanted them to stop questioning him, then he all needed to do is say that he was invoking his right to be silent. In fact, he could have done this by writing it down or even signing it. He just needed to communicate what he wanted to do.
#6-8: From the part I quoted: “But the court ruled that by not saying clearly that he was exercising his right to remain silent, he in fact forfeited the right”
That is what my headline states. If you remain silent, the ruling states (unless I am misunderstanding what the SC said) you have not invoked your right. Only if you invoke your right do you have it.
The other side of the ruling is that if you don’t invoke your right but instead speak as this guy did prior to stating that you are invoking it, you are not covered by the right.
Based on both of those situations, you don’t have the protections under the right to remain silent and all entails unless you specifically invoke it. Hence, by title is correct.
Perhaps I should have added the word ‘protections’ and quotes in the headline.
“You Do Not Have The ‘Right To Remain Silent’ Protections If You Remain Silent
What SN (#6) said.
The guy was doing fine keeping his mouth shut until he chose to answer a single question. Then he shut up again. Seems apparent he understood his right to silence.
The question I have is: if you claim a right to refuse to speak, do the police have the right to continue to question you?
As I understand it, you can invoke your right at any time, but you can’t take back any statement you’ve made.
I maintain that your personal belongings can not be searcherd without your agreement, ever, as your property should not be able to give evidence against you. This will become an issue if/when your phone/computer/robot/cyberneticimplants are siezed to bear witness against you.
10. “if you claim a right to refuse to speak, do the police have the right to continue to question you?”
Yes, they can continue the interview.
You have to ask them to stop the interview because you want to talk to an attorney. After that request they have to stop the interview.
USC: “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.
What do yah expect? Yah got progressives running things and they feel free to get creative nor do they believe that citizens need to protect themselves from big brother. Big brother loves you and wants to take care of you. You can trust him with anything. Right.
I don’t consider George Bust to be a constitutional conservative either so that explains him.
#12 SN – Interesting. Thanks.
What if your mouth is injured?
What if you are mute?
What if you are deaf?
What if your throat has been slashed?
…can we think up 20 more?
The whole Miranda speech will have to change:
“You have the right to remain silent. When I say “Do You Understand?” That’s the only thing you do not have a right to remain silent on. Wait for that phrase, it will follow several other legal phrases I have to tell you about. Do you understand what I’m telling you? Notice that this last sentence is not the “Do You Understand” sentence I will conclude my remarks here with. That will come in time. Part B: This section is all about how you get a lawyer, and you don’t have to say anything of substance about the crime with which you have been arrested. Are you with me on this? You can ask me questions about the questions without incriminating yourself at any time. Simply hold up your right hand and swear to God you have a question about the questioning process. Okay then, on to Part C which has to do with how we will buy a lawyer for you if you don’t have any money. Are we still on the same page? So, ‘Do You Understand?’ That was the final question. You have to say Yes, or this whole thing was a waste of time. Do You Understand?”
“You can say YES to the ‘Do You Understand’ question without saying YES to the question of Did You Do The Crime. Do You Understand? Did You Do The Crime?”
“Oh, you want Miranda. This is Abuse.”
Miranda is over rated. Unless you have been living under a rock, everyone knows they have the right to remain silent. Too many scumbags have gotten off because of legal trickery claiming they didn’t know they could remain silent.
Miranda is just another play in the game of the Matrix, which you are all plugged into. Unplug man! The police will badger you to the limits they are allowed by the law written by the same government which employs them. The prosecutor will work with the police and the judge to try their hardest to get a conviction, whether you are guilty or not, and despite any evidence for or against you. Many a prosecutor has played the legal games of obstructing “justice” to further their careers. Cops, judges, prosecutors are not held liable for their actions. Think “the thin blue line” and judges in the pockets of mafia or corporations. You think there’s justice in america? Think again.
I got told my Miranda rights once and when asked if I understood them I said: “No.” The cops acted surprised and said: “How can you be an int’l pastry chef and courtoom advocate and not understand what we just told you?” And I said because in the majesty of the law, words don’t mean what you and I might think they mean, and until we read and understand the 148 cases that have detailed all the nuances of what those words you used means, we really don’t know what those words mean. I haven’t read those cases and you haven’t explained them to me either.” But I was already under arrest and they didn’t need to question me anyway–which I mentioned as another reason the warning didn’t make any sense.
They told me I probably made bad brownies and let me go in a bad part of town with no money and no directions to the nearest phone. I’ve always been happy they didn’t beat me up for the polite honest lip I gave them.
Theory wise, “the law” was what the SC said “all the time” they only “illuminated it” expressly for lower court direction.
What lawyers here, seaworthy or not, will forecefully claim they “understand” their rights?
I think it bears repeating what I posted the last time this issue came up.
The court system has made up the Miranda Warning all on their own. An activist move every time they maintain/modify the Warning.
The goal is to prevent police abuse by using COERCION to force confessions. Thats admirable but the court being only human goes a few more steps. They equate being stupid and uninformed with being coerced. Now, I suppose that is “definitional” but I see some difference between not knowing your rights and voluntarily saying whatever you do versus being hit with a rubber hose. Maybe thats another demonstration of my inabiality to understand my court created Miranda Rights==but applying that understanding the court is moving AWAY FROM equating ignorance with coercion.
If truth is our guide, that is a good thing.
A loud, effusive, moist and pronounced fart would invalidate my right to remain silent?
Isn’t the whole point of “you have the right to remain silent” that, if you choose not to say anything, this cannot in any way be construed as an admission (e.g. along the logic of being silent because you’re hiding something)? It’s only if you *do* say something that it is permissible as evidence.
It’s basically codifying away the whole “if you’re innocent, you’ve got nothing to hide” fallacy.
Can the President executive order a reversal of SC rulings?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
UNDERSTAND THIS.
There should be NO QUESTION in Miranda.
These are YOUR RIGHTS, they SHOULDNT be used as a QUESTION.
THERE IS NO YES OR NO to this.
upon hearing this, the ONLY answer is to ask/get a lawyer.
ECA–you say: “THERE IS NO YES OR NO to this.
upon hearing this, the ONLY answer is to ask/get a lawyer.” /// Ummm, no. Most Sup Ct rulings, as this one, strike a BALANCE of COMPETING social and legal interests. There is NO REASON to prohibit VOLUNTARY, non-coerced, confessions from people who choose to do so. Silly to argue an absolute position as you do. The whole point of “rights” against the government is to provide a check on abuse. Make the protections overbroad against the government at the abuse goes the other way. No rational person wants absolute positions enshrined. BALANCE in all things.
Actually, the logical extension of your position is that NO ONE should be allowed to be questioned at all without it all being filtered thru an attorney. That IS THE LOGIC of too much of the courts rulings in the past.
Focus on the nature of the admission: not was it “in the dope’s long term interest” but rather was it truly “voluntary” or not? We certainly don’t want a system wherein even the stupid and poor criminals get away with murder to we? Imagine what Pedro would do with such a panoply of society destroying rights set forth before him? I’d say “he’d take advantage of them” but the truth is such a position requires no other outcome–no choice involved.
In a free society, the stupid and uniformed should be allowed to tell the truth.
One gets the impression that individual rights and freedoms have been getting chipped away at for quite some time now. It’s easy, see, you just crank up the fear factor, throw in a few crisis and disasters, keep the people stressed out, then you start telling them how they need to change the laws and the constitution, for national security, for their own good…
People that are frightend and stressed out are easier to take advantage of.
Much ado about nothing. Tell the police you want to remain silent and then do so.
#14 So you think the Supreme Court are mostly progressives? HAHAHAHA
>Only if you invoke your right do you have it.
No, this is not true. Only if you waive the right, do you not have it. The Constitution is full of negative rights, what the government cannot do. The rights are preexisting the Constitution. You do not have to invoke a right to have it.
Your followup headline about protections is more accurate.