Supreme Court: Suspects must explicitly invoke Miranda rights

Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up. In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday — over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans' rights of protection from police abuse "upside down."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

"It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.

Read more

Great, just whats needed at this time and point in this nation: Cops who can now show even less restraint when harassing someone.

reply to post by brainwrek


I'm not sure what's so hard about saying, "I remain silent from this point."

Of course, I highly doubt that'll always convince interrogators to hush.

This is exactly why Bush, Clintstone, and the obamanation have been working toward a reduction in Amerikans rights. They have been adding more and more liberal judges to our court in order to water down the constitution. You wanted a thousand points of light, you wanted change, you got it!
And the sheeple go," Baaaahh, bhaaaa, bahhh."

I have never had these rights read to me. I do have a question
about it though. The first seven words are, "You have the right to
remain silent". Well, if a person has the right to remain silent and has
just been told so, why does the person have to answer with anything?
The first thing the police ask is, "Do you understand your rights?" which
is asking for an answer from the person who just had his/her rights read
to them. If I was ever in a situation where they told me I had the right to
remain silent, I would do so I believe. If they then ask me if I understand
my rights, I again would be totally silent and the lawyer can deal with it.
The right to remain silent is just that, a right to remain silent.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by endtimer]

Originally posted by Violater1
This is exactly why Bush, Clintstone, and the obamanation have been working toward a reduction in Amerikans rights. They have been adding more and more liberal judges to our court in order to water down the constitution. You wanted a thousand points of light, you wanted change, you got it!

And the sheeple go," Baaaahh, bhaaaa, bahhh."

Actually Sotomayor was AGAINST this. So the Liberal judge wants freedom for the citizens... hmm go figure. Quit the right-wing propaganda.

The conservative judges are the ones who voted to require those arrested to now ANNOUNCE their own right to remain silent. Conservatives in government (and media) are notoriously fascists.

reply to post by Violater1


What do you mean?? From an outside perspective this seams less liberal and more reactionary, how does filling the bench with so called liberals lead to an Amerika that looks like some quasi fascist police state.

In my experience the only liberal cops are on tv in fictional programs, cops who can act liberal often grow a short beard put on a little weight and become spokesmen or community liaison officers.

The so called "Miranda rights" is a judge made rule that stems from Miranda v Arizona, and has been so ridiculously removed from the 5th Amendment of which that ruling is actually based:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The reality of American jurisprudence, as has been the case with common law, even before there was a United States of America, is that ignorance of the law is no excuse:

Ignorantia juris non excusat

The Latin phrase which translates to ignorance of the law is no excuse, and given it is in Latin, this should give you a clue as to how old that legal concept is. Latin is dead language, the legal concept is not.

It should not come as any surprise that some judge made rule could be adjusted by other judges to mean whatever they deem it means. What The SCOTUS can not do is adjust the meaning to the 5th Amendment. No person has any legal obligation to act as a witness against themselves. This means it is prudent, when being treated as a suspect to shut up and not say a word. However, since the so called "Miranda Warning" makes clear that any thing you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law, simply just shutting up is not really enough when under interrogation by an LEO.

This is why it is imperative to announce you are exercising your right to not act as a witness against yourself, and to further assert your 6th Amendment right to competent assistance of counsel:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Saying as little as possible is prudent, but telling an LEO who is interrogating you that you have a right to remain silent, and that you have a right to assistance of counsel is equally as prudent. It was prior to this most recent ruling and remains so after this ruling. To assert to an LEO to either charge me with a crime or release me is also prudent. If law enforcement is intent on prosecuting you they will whether you "lawyer up" or not, and the difference is that if you don't assert your right to assistance of counsel, law enforcement will take this as tacit approval of interrogation without an attorney present.

The so called "Miranda Warning" never explained anything about tacit approval, or acquiesence, but both of these can amount to a failure to assert ones rights.

Rights are not created by judges, nor are they created by legislatures through fiat legislation. Rights are inalienable and must be jealously guarded, and zealously asserted if they are to be recognized as rights. This has nothing at all to do with liberalism nor conservatism, not anything to do with democracy, fascism, communism, socialism, nor any other form of governance, it is the law.

reply to post by brainwrek


I don't know. You get any more liberals to continue bashing the police....Hey, ever hear that old saw about not poking a rattlesnake with a stick too often?

Well, the way I see it, it's still the police's word against the arrested drug dealer's word whether the liberal was Mirandized or not. I mean, the dealer has been busted so dang many times he has got his Miranda Warnings memorized.

Ya know, Miranda was made law when the Supreme Court was more liberal....and now liberals are complaining about Miranda being used against them.

Sigh. Shrug your shoulders. Have a laugh.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by fred call]

Originally posted by fred call

Ya know, Miranda was made law when the Supreme Court was more liberal....and now liberals are complaining about Miranda being used against them.

... Do you know what Miranda Rights are?

Because that makes absolutely no sense.

Miranda Warning

Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito

Dissent Sotomayor., joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer

Berghuis v Thompkins

Well, no surprises here.

Yet again, it is the conservatives who are slowly chipping away at the freedoms we have in this country.

Anybody who honestly believes libertarianism is synonymous with conservatism should seek medical attention. This is yet another clear-cut example of the love affair conservatives have with authoritarianism.

reply to post by brainwrek


The operative phrase in the majority opinion would seem to be this one...

said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent.

Once you've been informed of your rights to remain silent, shut the hell up, 'til you've lawyered up.

Seems to me, this ruling merely reaffirms what is already common practice. Once the suspect in a crime has begun speaking, it's gonna be hard to get the cops to back off...

Which only reaffirms the notion of "shut the hell up, 'til you lawyer up."

reply to post by drwizardphd


You wrote: ... Do you know what Miranda Rights are?

Yes, I know what they are. But I am conservative. Not liberal. I don't have the Miranda Rights read to me every month.

reply to post by drwizardphd


When the Supreme Court hard Mirand v. Arizona, the Supreme Court makeup was much more liberal than it is today. I thought you knew that. Well, now you do.


1966
Miranda v. Arizona was another case that helped define the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case was Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to a crime during police questioning without knowing he had a right to have an attorney present. Based on his confession, Miranda was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them in court. Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted.

This would not be an issue if every grade schooler was taught this important axiom "never talk to the police - ever" and "you have the RIGHT to remain silent and you should always do so. Instead children as taught "always talk to the police, they are your friend."

Why is this the case? Since the law says you do not have to talk if you don't want to, why is that not drummed in?

Kids are taught "don't lie to the police" but they are never taught "the police are trained to lie to you." Why is this?

Children are taught to submit to uniform, because uniform = authority. Why?