Supreme Court rules against the 5th Amendment, your right to remain silent.

Introverts And The Fifth Amendment.

If you’ve been arrested, and the police want to interrogate you, they will tell you that you have the right to remain silent.

How do you assert that right?

One way would be to say something like “I would like to remain silent.” Saying “I want a lawyer” should also stop the questioning.

But today, in Salinas v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States held that you do not assert your right to remain silent by remaining silent. If you want to remain silent, you’ll need to be prepared to talk about it.

Though a funny thing happened on the way to that question presented — it turns out the Court decided that merely being silent is not the same thing as invoking the Fifth Amendment.

Had Salinas said, for example, in response to the question about ballistics testing, “I will not answer that question, because I have the right not to under the Fifth Amendment,” that response would have invoked the Fifth Amendment. But Salinas just sat silent.

Bye-bye 5th Amendment! Supreme Court Decides: Anything You Don’t Say Can and Will Be Used Against You.

The Supreme Court said that unless a person specifically asks for their Fifth Amendment right to remain silence, that your silence can be used as an indication of guilt. The case was brought to court on the basis of an unconstitutional prosecution against Genovevo Salinas.

So, the advice to sit there and keep your mouth shut, should you be unfortunate enough to have been accused of committing a crime, is no longer the best option. If the police fail to read you your Miranda warning, you must explicitly say that you are claiming your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.

So what does all this really mean?

What it means is that unless you specifically say "I am invoking my 5th Amendment Right to remain silent", you no longer have that right... At-least according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Just "remaining silent" is not enough.

What was the logic behind this Right? That remaining silent was not an indication of guilt, but not any longer. When Salinas stopped talking, the police took that as a sign of guilt and arrested him.

Screw it, lets just keep things simple. Never talk to the police:

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Screw it, lets just keep things simple. Never talk to the police:

Unless you have first consulted and have you lawyer present, and not a court appointed lawyer that is only there to get you to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

If you have to expressly invoke your right to remain silent are you then giving up that right by invoking it?

I know it has been said plenty that you dont have any rights save the ones you exercise but this is ridiculous.

So when they say, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court."

They are lying?

Wait, so saying I have the right to remain silent is effectively and oxymoron now?

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Wait, so saying I have the right to remain silent is effectively and oxymoron now?

If you remain silent by using your right to remain silent, you effectively lose the right to remain silent by remaining silent.

*I have a nose bleed now.

reply to post by beezzer


It's a timeline thing...

In 1992, Genovevo Salinas voluntarily entered a Houston police station to discuss the murder of two brothers, Juan and Hector Garza. He complied with officer’s questions, but when asked whether shotgun casings would match his firearm, he fell silent. Texas prosecutors convinced jurors that his silence was an admission of guilt.

......

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” not an unqualified “right to remain silent.” The high court long ago determined that criminal suspects in police custody have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Suspects are read their Miranda warnings after an arrest to inform them of their right to remain silent so as to not provide evidence against oneself at trial.

However, it was unclear whether the right applies to interactions with law enforcement prior to an actual arrest.

communities.washingtontimes.com...


So AFTER arrest...the 5th is applicable according to the supreme court, PRIOR to arrest that silence can qualify as evidence along with things that you actually do say.

The 5th only applies when you have been arrested.

That is the reasoning...not defending the ruling, only bringing more data.

reply to post by Indigo5


That's correct, they underhandedly extract a confession before your arrest....while its still an investigation.

In essence they are trying to get you to nark on your self. Its been SOP for years and years.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Wait, so saying I have the right to remain silent is effectively and oxymoron now?

If you remain silent by using your right to remain silent, you effectively lose the right to remain silent by remaining silent.

*I have a nose bleed now.

Miranda states that you have a right to remain silent, but the 5th amendment and "right to remain silent" are not the same thing.

The 5th amendment grants you the right to protect yourself against self incrimination; it has nothing at all to do with the right to remain silent. On the same token, your right to remain silent is still there. You have the right. Miranda does not say anything about what will come about as a result of being silent.

People are getting these things confused in the worst kinds of ways here.

reply to post by Indigo5


Good then BEFORE the arrest you can envoke the freedom of speach, which you would not like to use at this time....Then after being arrested you can plead the 5th.....

Just a bunch of BS so THEY continue to have the power over regular normal people who mean nothing.....THAT IS only if you believe regular people don't pay these A$$holes salary with taxes.....

reply to post by gladtobehere


So does that mean Lois Lerner can be recalled again????? Other than that, I don't see anything positive about this ruling AT ALL!!! But with the way our dictatorship we call our government is going,,,,,it really doesn't surprise me.....

Edit: Eh, nevermind.......................jumped the gun on that one......

Please explain how your right to remain silent is different form your fifth?
If your fifth is there to protect yourself from incrimination, you Miranda right to remain silent has the same end.

Your argument is flawed.

This decision, in plain English:

The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment gives an individual suspected of crime a right not to be forced, by police or other government officials, into giving up evidence that would show he or she was guilty of a crime. The Court had ruled previously, in the famous case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, that an individual who was being held by police and could not leave the police station had to be told of a right to remain silent.

But the new case before the Court on Monday did not involve an individual who was being held against his will by police officers. The individual, Genevevo Salinas of Houston, had voluntarily gone to a police station when officers asked him to accompany them to talk about the murder of two men. So, in that situation, he was not entitled to be told about his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.

He answered most of the officers’ questions, but simply remained silent when they asked him whether shotgun casings found at the scene of the murders would match his gun. He shifted his feet, and others acted nervously, but did not say anything. Later, at his trial, prosecutors told jurors that his silence in the face of that question showed that he was guilty, that he knew that the shotgun used to kill the victims was his.

His lawyer wanted the Supreme Court to rule that the simple fact of silence during police questioning, when an individual was not under arrest, could not be used against that person at a criminal trial. The Court did not rule on that issue. Instead, it said that Salinas had no complaint about the use of his silence, because in order to claim the Fifth Amendment right to say nothing that might be damaging, he had to explicitly say something that showed his silence was a claim of that right. Since he did not do so, the Amendment did not protect him, according to the decision.

www.scotusblog.com...

He voluntarily goes to the station, talks about the murder willingly, then abruptly stops for no reason. The prosecutors point out that he stopped talking. Why shouldn't they be able to? He wasn't under arrest, he expressed willingness to talk, Miranda doesn't apply, then all of a sudden he stops talking? How does anyone know he's changed his mind and now wants to take the Fifth?

I get so frustrated with legal threads.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
Please explain how your right to remain silent is different form your fifth?
If your fifth is there to protect yourself from incrimination, you Miranda right to remain silent has the same end.

Your argument is flawed.

They absolutely CAN have the same end result. But who's to say that a person remaining silent has anything to do with them doing it to avoid self incrimination? Maybe they dont want to say something that will implicate someone else. Who knows. That is not something for us to make an assumption about.

Originally posted by flyswatter

They absolutely CAN have the same end result. But who's to say that a person remaining silent has anything to do with them doing it to avoid self incrimination? Maybe they dont want to say something that will implicate someone else. Who knows. That is not something for us to make an assumption about.

Either way, you have the right to remain silent.
From yourself of for someone else makes no difference.

reply to post by flyswatter

Miranda states that you have a right to remain silent, but the 5th amendment and "right to remain silent" are not the same thing. The 5th amendment grants you the right to protect yourself against self incrimination; it has nothing at all to do with the right to remain silent. On the same token, your right to remain silent is still there. You have the right. Miranda does not say anything about what will come about as a result of being silent.

You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say (or don't say) can and will be used against you?

That doesn't sound like much of a "right"

Other links related to source:

www.forbes.com...

texanpost.com...

______beforeitsnews/alternative/2013/06/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-so-we-can-use-it-against-you-2687222.html

thecontributor.com...

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


So the bottom line take away is what Lawyers have been advising folks to do all along...If you think the Cops might be considering you as a suspect in a crime and they ask you a question your response should be "Am I under arrest?...No?..then *&^% off and talk to my lawyer".

Originally posted by snowspirit
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Miranda states that you have a right to remain silent, but the 5th amendment and "right to remain silent" are not the same thing. The 5th amendment grants you the right to protect yourself against self incrimination; it has nothing at all to do with the right to remain silent. On the same token, your right to remain silent is still there. You have the right. Miranda does not say anything about what will come about as a result of being silent.

You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say (or don't say) can and will be used against you?

That doesn't sound like much of a "right"

edit on 19-6-2013 by snowspirit because: Weird- double word

I'm not trying to provide excuses or justifications of any sort, I'm simply stating that they are different and people need to understand that. Both the right to avoid self incrimination and the right to remain silent should be used and exercized as needed, I have no issue with that. But before people decide to try and put them to the test, they need to understand the differences, the implications, and the benefits/drawbacks of both.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by flyswatter

They absolutely CAN have the same end result. But who's to say that a person remaining silent has anything to do with them doing it to avoid self incrimination? Maybe they dont want to say something that will implicate someone else. Who knows. That is not something for us to make an assumption about.

Either way, you have the right to remain silent.
From yourself of for someone else makes no difference.

You're absolutely right, I agree. You dont have to say a word. But as explained (and now in rulings), that is not the same as pleading the 5th. And with silence, there is no guarantee of what will happen to you as a result of that silence.