It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must tell police explicitly that they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
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?
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?
Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
Bush suspended habeas corpus and it hasn't been re-instated yet so this really is just another way to take away rights
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "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. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."
Originally posted by SpectreDC
Already people don't seem to understand Miranda laws. They are only applicable when you are under custodial control of the officer and they are interrogating you. They must give a warning before they can use anything you say in court. Technically, you can be arrested and never be Mirandized. If this happens, their case against you is likely already solid and you're likely #ed anyway.
Due to how America has popularized the Miranda warning, people seem to think if you are arrested, you MUST be Mirandized. And that is simply false.
...in order for the interrogation to stop....
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The police are not telepathic, and in the course of the actual holding the suspect, from the time they have the person in handcuffs, to the time of court, anything that is stated, has to be clearly documented and recorded down.
suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.