It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court changes Miranda laws?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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.


Full story




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
So I guess this changes the reading of the Miranda warning. Before it went something like...


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?


I'm guessing now it will read..


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?


I can't say I'm in full agreement with the change for a few reasons.

Its early for me and I'm not really thinking clearly, but I saw this story and wanted to share and get some other views.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
This seems like a bit of house keeping if anything.

If I were to invoke my right to remain silent, I would tell the officer/detective/whoever was questioning me that I do not wish to answer the questions.

If I'm not mistaken...isn't that kinda understood as to how it should go down? Otherwise the officer may think you're being a jerk or something.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Bush suspended habeas corpus and it hasn't been re-instated yet so this really is just another way to take away rights



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I still am trying to wrap my head around this as well.

Now, we only have the right to remain silent if we say specifically that we would?

as well as stating specifically that we would like to use our right to a lawyer?

seems dangerous to me.

Know your Rights! ( I could use a little help on this one)



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Non-story. If you don't want to answer interrogation questions tell them that you wish to remain silent.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

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


I wouldn't really say that.


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.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Also, I find this rather interesting. Look who gave the dissenting opinion:


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."


And people were worried about her? Seems like she's doing a good job. I think she voted against quite a few rather nasty pieces of legislation in fact.

It's a good argument too. I'm honestly keeping my ear to the ground on any matters related to this change because I would like to find out whether or not verbally invoking your right to remain silent automatically strips you of them.

All I know is until I know for sure, if I get interrogated anytime soon I'll be writing down my invocation of my right to remain silent.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by SpectreDC]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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.


I believe that is actually false.

If you are "detained" the Miranda warnings do not have to be explicitly read. If you are formally "arrested" and placed in the custody of a law enforcement officer they are required to notify you of your rights.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Nope, this is a big deal in a one-more-nail-in-the-coffin sort of way. Before it was implicit... Understood by the law enforcement entity. They are there to protect our rights, and that was the spirit of the purpose for their obligation to state those rights. Now, you must invoke your own right to remain silent. YOU must say it. This is indicative (to my mind) of the change from 'protecting the rights, bodies, and property of the citizenry' to 'controlling and intimidating the citizenry'.

1. These things are often regulated and I have my suspicions this will likely become so as well. In other words, not only will you now know that you must say it, you will have to know how to say it correctly to invoke your rights.

2. Many people may not understand or simply be uninformed that this is now necessary, (which is what I am sure the Big They are counting on).

3. Under certain circumstances simply attempting to invoke this could be interpreted as beligerance. I suspect a slippery slope dillemma with this aspect specifically.

4. How easy will it be for law enforcement, or whatever entity is involved to simply say 'nope, they never said anything like that', and you have a they said, he said situation...? The authority figure(s) will have more credibility.

5. This is paving the way to whittle away at our rights a little more... and a little more...



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Not a big deal the whole Mirandizing a suspect is show now a days for tv shows like cops. When I was arrested neither me nor my friend were Mirandized we told our lawyers they said it was a non issue and that it is not required.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
After looking at the case and reading through such, I would say the Supreme court is correct. If you are stopped and arrested by the police, the Miranda protects not only the police, but the suspect from abuses on both sides. 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. By stating that you want to remain silent, and want a lawyer, immediately stops all police questioning as they are required to provide a lawyer and are not to ask you questions.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
In the matter of this case it is correct that the defendant's utterances betrayed his claim of silence. That is just a matter of procedural advantage which someone lacking a lawyer during questioning has to face.

As far as implying that this SHOULD change the Miranda decision I think it is not correct.

Silence is silence. Silence is not 'SAYING' your going to be silent just as soon as you finish this sentence.

Also, rights are not negotiable. How those rights are treated by authorities are.

I suspect, if there is any true devotion to justice left in the club that is the establishment, this will be reviewed insofar as its applicability to Miranda, as a general rule.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Another HORRIBLE decision that gives thug cops another excuse for hour after hour of cajoling and intimidating and lying and coercion...hoping that you will break.

But here is the real deal: If you have an ounce of sense, you would tell the cops immediately ; " I have nothing to say without an attorney present". Then shut the hell up.

The guy in this case made a mistake; he continued to answer and respond for 3 HOURS...the cops wore him down. Had he remained TOTALLY silent, he would have been OK...the cops would have tired of all the crap and gone away.

It is IMPERATIVE that all person dragged into a cop dungeon for ' questioning' to challenge the thug cops to either: Charge or release.

Never ever answer ANY questions asked by a cop; ONLY lawyers should ever speak to or deal with a cop. this case is just defining at what point a person shows the INTENT to remain silent, and in this case the guy spoke, albeit very little, to the persecutors for 3 hours!!

The mistake is in NOT making it clear that you wish to remain silent. If you respond and do not object to the dog and pony show the cops are preforming, then the cops can assume that you are fine and dandy with it and will continue.

This should be taught in every school from elementary up: NEVER EVER talk to a cop unless a lawyer is there...answer NO questions and always tell the cops that I WANT A LAWYER AND WILL NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

THE ONLY WAY TO GET AROUND BADGERING BULLYING COP IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANOTHER WORD OUT OF YOU. That will convince the inquisitors that they can put the rubber hoses away and get another donut.

Until we teach our kids how to resist and defend themselves against the police we will see more and more abuses by the cops and more bad decisions by a loaded right wing dominated court. With scum like Scalia and Roberts and the token Negro ( Thomas ) that infect the system and bench we need to educate the people as to how to resist the enemies advances.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
There is another case where the SCOTUS retreated from Miranda in a similar way. In Davis v. US the Supreme court held that unless a criminal suspect unambiguously asserts his right to an attorney, the police may interrogate the suspect without a lawyer present. In that case the suspect said "'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.'"

So if you are arrested and you do not want to be interrogated say these magic words, "I want a lawyer present with me" and "I wish to remain silent."

[edit on 1-6-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]

[edit on 1-6-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Isn't merely being silent kind of telling them you choose to remain so?

I think that the crux of this lies in the following:


...in order for the interrogation to stop....


In other words, once you explicitly say:

"I choose to remain silent"

then the interrogation must end. No more questions. No more baiting. Nothing.

However, by merely remaining silent, the police could use the argument that they simply hadn't asked you a question you would like to answer yet.

This, to me, is nothing more than semantics.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

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.


That's funny. Police are not to presume to know your silence is invoking your right to remain silence, but they can presume that your silence is waiving that right.


suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.


Doesn't the constitution already invoke our rights on our behalf? Why must we be made to 'remind' by orating the words to legal forces? They did go to school to learn that.

Does anyone else see that We are hopelessly lost?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Bravo, Wolf!

The fact is recognized and stipulated within the law - it indicates that your rights are not a matter of "assertion" : they are yours - regardless.

Now with that fact set; the only way you can lose that right is to assert, or surrender that RIGHT with the legal understanding that you are no longer 'equal' to any other citizen; that by doing so, they are now in control of your immediate future.

Further, such an assertion can not reasonably be said to be a 'contract;' i.e. just because you answer to your name, or address it must never mean you HAVE in fact waived your right and thus are compelled to subject yourself to interrogation (whatever form that might take.)

This seems like a clear indication that the SCOTUS has empowered authorities and reneged on the common understanding that the rights we are born with can not be eliminated as a matter of policy.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
In addition, a person being interrogated by the cops could remain silent and say nothing, and still be OK. It is when the person responds to the cops that the cops can assume that it is Ok to continue.

Of course now the best thing is to say that you want an attorney before any questioning and that puts an end to it ( supposedly..cops violate this all the time and keep on...if they break the guy and get what they wnat they will simply lie and say that the guy never said anything about a lawyer...why do you think that cops hate filimg? ) .. but even if you choose to say nothing then say NOTHING!!

Never give the cops anything ambiguous or they will use it against you. Be very clear: I WILL NOT talk without a lawyer. No if's and's or but's.

The cops can use every devious and dastardly means to get a confession from you, even if it is fasle and coerced...so they can close the case and get the heat off them. Locally recently a man was found not guilty to a sesx offense even though he had initially made a ' confession' to an agent...he had not been Mirandized and said later that the agent twisted his words and that he never meant what the agent wrote down.

The fact that he was not advised...even though not under arrest..and that the SBI refuses to film and record ' interviews' tipped the scales in favor of the man. The agent is notorious in this region because he once said he can tell when someone is guilty just by looking at them!!

Trusting a cop is like trusting a rattlesnake: Get too close or turn your back and you will get bit. Trust ONLY a lawyer.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
You have the right to remain silent - and you have to speak in order to keep the right... which you just broke by speaking



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join