Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Decides Your Silence May Be Used Against You
crackspackle writes "The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Texas earlier today in a murder trial where the defendant, prior to be taken into custody, had been questioned by the police and chose to remain silent on key questions. This fact was bought up at trial and used to convict him. Most of us have seen at least enough cop shows to know police must read a suspect their Miranda rights when placing them in custody. The issue was a bit murkier here in that the defendant had not yet been detained and while we all probably thought the freedom from self-incrimination was an implicit right as stated in the Constitution, apparently SCOTUS now thinks you have to claim that right or at least be properly mirandized first."
It appears that if you are "free to leave at any time" you lose a few rights. Fancy trick, up there with getting kids to write apology letters.
so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them? land of the...fuck it
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
What happened to the spirit of the law vs. letter of the law? Isn't it why there are judges?
When you remain silent, that is an action rather than a statement. Both your statements and actions can be used against you. It's right there in the Miranda rights.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The Supreme Court has managed to hold that in order to remain silent, you must speak.
Oh my people....
Never, under any circumstances, talk to the police. If you are free to go, then leave. If you aren't then ask for a lawyer and shut up.
Seriously, wtf.
This is not a new right. I just passed CA Bar exam, so I can tell you -- police cannot use post-Miranda silence against you, but they can use pre-Miranda silence against you, and it has been this way for a long time.
But this is a matter of the prosecution can bring it up and ask you -- "Hey you were talking and talking to the police about the murder, but when they asked you if ballistics tests would link your shotgun to the murder you suddenly got quiet, why is that?" -- which is what happened here.
Ok, first off it's the Miranda Warning, not the Miranda Rights. You have them at all times, read to you or not. The warning is there to remind you that you have the option not to incriminate yourself.
Or, at least it was until this decision. Ahh, The Roberts Court, whittling our rights down one 5-4 at a time.
The client did not answer one of several questions, and the prosecutor simply stated he had no response when asked a particular question. He was not charged with a crime for not responding, and he was not convicted of a crime for not responding. The ruling here was that the prosecution could admit as evidence that he did not answer a particular question during a conversation with a detective. Completely different things.
This is why you DO NOT SAY ANYTHING to ANY QUESTION if you are being detained by the police. Be polite, request a lawyer and state frankly you are not answering any questions until you have counsel.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Defendants are allowed to be silent and not to testify on their own behalf. Prosecutors and jurors are allowed to take that into account; it's up to the defendant's lawyers to spin the silence before the jury by speculating on why they may have done so, other than guilt.
During the Congressional hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in Major League baseball, the slugger Mark McGwire answered some general questions regarding his opinions but repeatedly responded "I don't want to discuss the past. I want to talk about the future" to pointed questions regarding whether he used steroids himself. Committee members decided not to give him a break, so McGwire had to take the fifth to the point of monotony in front of the national televised audience.
Everybody who watched that got their answer as to whether McGwire had used steroids during his record-shattering seasons (several years later, he admitted that he had).
`If your innocent just don't hide behind silence, I've stated how I feel about stuff like this a few times and been chewed out for it. I'm going to say my feelings again, innocent people who want to appear innocent don't act guilty and silence just like refusing DNA is a guilty act.
What the hell has been going on with the United States these last few years? I'm no conspiracy nut, but the end effect is practically indistinguishable from what you'd get from a concerted effort to do away with the US Constitution.
Damn it, America! You used to be cool.
Sorry, it's been pretty well used up by a combination of Bush/Obama and the Roberts Court. It'd be like trying to wipe your ass with Swiss cheese at this point.
Just say "I'm not sure whether or not I can be compelled to say anything about this (or surrender that item in my possession) or not". Authorities will instantly know that due process is the only way to go from there. Also, don't be rude to officers or play dumb about it. One line to stick to is all that's needed.
The issue here was that he did speak. Then didn't. Then did. If he had not ever said anything, then he wouldn't have had that held against him. Instead, he answered 100 (or whatever) questions, and didn't answer a single one of those in the middle. That omission was used against him.If he had the right to remain silent, he didn't exercise it because he kept talking. It he didn't answer a single question after, he likely would have been protected.
The real issue here isn't the 5th Amendment, but "non-custodial" being everything now. You are under "arrest-lite" when given a ticket on the side of the road. You don't have any rights of an arrestee, but if you drive off, you will be arrested for fleeing or resisting arrest or whatever it is in your jurisdiction, so you are obviously not free to leave. He was interrogated for an hour, but had no rights of an arrestee. The Constitution defines some things, but not others. So "arrest" was re-defined to suit the power-hungry conservatives (sorry, have to toss this in, since it's a conservative court, and this crap keeps coming down, but when a someone is up for election, the liars claim the Republicans are for a smaller non-invasive government).
Learn to love Alaska
Your username nicely captures my response to this ruling.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
To claim your fifth amendment rights to not incriminate yourself, they've decided you need to explicitly claim them.
Also, there's nothing stopping the person from just not saying anything at all and asking for a lawyer.
In this case the person answered *some* questions, then didn't answer one, and never explicitly took the fifth.
One hundred responses and not a single one interested as to whether the suspect is actually guilty of the crime or not.
That is what a "Conservative" court gets you: Fascism.
No one understands the constitution and what it is for.
While it may be common practice for people to assert their 5th amendment rights, I fail to see how stating that assertion is a requirement. And problems with this ruling are glaringly obvious. What if someone merely doesn't understand the question being asked?!
If I were in the same position and someone asked me if my shotgun would match the bullistics of some-such, I would not answer either. Why? Because the question doesn't make sense!!!! We're talking about a shotgun -- a scatter-gun if you will. That's the awesome thing about those weapons. They don't HAVE ballistics, Shotguns are not rifles. They don't leave marks on their projectiles which could trace a shot back to the shotgun that fired it. The closest they could come to connecting the two is GSR and that's just matching brands of shotgun shells.
What could have been going through this guy's mind when they asked him the question? "Is this a trap? Why would they ask me this stupid question? If I tell them I think the question is stupid, will they become hostile to me? I don't want to provike them! My mom used to say 'If you can't say anything nice, say nothing!' What are these people trying to do?! Oh thank god they moved on to another question..."
The government is now stating that a person much know their rights for their rights to exist. And this same government threatens all manner of trouble for anyone who teaches and explains to people what their rights are. Can we finally all agree that government is fully and generally opposed to people having any rights at all?
The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. It doesn't protect you from being tricked into incriminating yourself.
There are specific requirements for Miranda to apply, and for exclusion to be in play.
Evidence must have been gathered.
The evidence must be testimonial.
The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.
The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.
The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.
The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.
So basically yes, your rights are lower if you are not in the custody of the state. Compulsion is not in play.
Hey now, keep the liberal side of the Court represented in that list. They are the ones that decided the government can take your land and give it to a casino developer.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Quote from my law teacher in high school. First question ... Am I under arrest officer? or What am I being charged with? If no answer. Say I am walking away don't shoot me in the back. Or thank you, I will be driving away now.
...and again.... and again... until it fucking sinks in!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
(Specific to US)
I'm going to drop this here.
It's a wonderful introduction to the issues at play, simplified enough to be easily understood, but not so simple as to be irrelevant.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The issue here was that he did speak. Then didn't. Then did.
In other words, he spoke. The headline is sensationalism. Either you spoke or you didn't, and this sounds like speaking to me. Otherwise, he was "just a little bit pregnant".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
To everyone bitching and complaining: actually read the article, maybe.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/17/58578.htm
Hey now, keep the liberal side of the Court represented in that list.
A) They are covered in the blanket "Roberts Court" designation; and
B) You mean "less conservative", not "liberal".
We live in a country where it can be illegal to dig a hole or pickup a feather off the ground.(Depending on the circumstances and yes really.) As this video points out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. There's so many laws a prosecutor can find anything if he feels like it. Hell, even the cop in that video says you should never talk to him. To put a bigger point on it even in the video they give a quote from Robert Jackson(prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials) who said "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances."
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
As much bad news about the Constitution as we've had lately, here's the sitch from TFA:
On the morning of December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their Houston home. There were no witnesses to the murders, but a neighbor who heard gunshots saw someone run out of the house and speed away in a dark-colored car. Police recovered six shotgun shell casings at the scene. The investigation led police to petitioner, who had been a guest at a party the victims hosted the night before they were killed. Police visited petitioner at his home, where they saw a dark blue car in the driveway. He agreed to hand over his shotgun for ballistics testing and to accompany police to the station for questioning.
Petitioner's interview with the police lasted approximately one hour. All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings. For most of the interview, petitioner answered the officer's questions. But when asked whether his shotgun "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder," petitioner declined to answer. Instead, petitioner "[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up." After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which petitioner answered [citations omitted by me].
He wasn't under arrest and was voluntarily answering questions. Then not. Then was. He just shouldn't have talked to or gone with the cops in the first place.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If speaking and not speaking can both result in incriminating yourself, then would this mean that the only way to use your 5th amendment right of not incriminating yourself, be to lie to the police & court?
That would make things insane, 'cause if you get busted for perjury, you can claim innocence 'cause you did it under your 5th amendment right since it's the only way to avoid incriminating yourself. Then they legally can't prosecute you for it without going against the constitution. I'm sure they'll probably still try to prosecute you.
If you have a decent enough lawyer to get you off, then could it mean a mistrial in the original court case where you perjured, since none of the testimony from you (or anyone else) could be considered legitimate? After all, the people testifying against you could also be lying in order to avoid incriminating themselves.
This could get really sticky really fast.
...why soooo many people ever EVER talk to the police if the are even the least bit guilty of a crime...just shut up from the start.
i live in florida and have had my issues with law enforcement. what people don't really understand about the Casey Anthony case is that SHE NEVER NEVER INCRIMINATED herself...ever! Its the main reason she got away with it...the prosecution was so used to having someone ANYONE sit on the stand and say "yes SHE DID IT and I saw it" that they hardly knew how to proceed without that bullet in their gun. I've seen the state drop serious felony charges against folks because they just didn't say a word when arrested, even with damning physical evidence!
Don't you all know that 95% of all cases that go to trial are won by the prosecution on eyewitness testimony and self-incriminating statements? In other words, informants and defendants statements...not super-CSI high tech gadgets that network primetime TV likes to brainwash the...well, whoever it is who still watches that stuff...idk anymore who the heck that is.
Oh well...i could go on about personal experiences in this matter but...i would DEFINITELY be incriminating myself...
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Hey.. would ya pass me the constitution.. I need some more ass wipes.
"What [DHS] thinks about the Fifth Amendment"
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
He wasn't denied his right to say nothing. When taken into custody anything you say can be used against you. It says nothing about what you don't say cant be used against you. He chose not to speak when arrested, they didn't force him to talk. End of story.
Besides he was found guilty for other reasons, not because he chose not to talk. Jesus Christ you guys are retards jumping to conclusions for the sake of yelling "Police and courts are bad!" any chance you are given without even knowing intimate details.
"Where were you when you killed your girlfriend?"
Your honor, the suspect failed to answer the question. Clearly they are guilty!!!!
Another Right bites the dust... and another one gone and another one gone, another one bites the dust.
If body language is testimony, then I am afraid we will have to release a LOT of convicted rapists. "She said 'No!' but her eyes said 'Yes!'" Sound familiar? Or is it the exclusive domain of the government to be allowed to interpret the meaning of body language? (And before anyone says "it was the jury, not the government!" I'll remind you that jurists *ARE* government and so is the prosecution who claims this is evidence and the judges who allow it.)
This ruling simply frightens and disturbs me.
NEVER, EVER, EVER FUCKING TALK TO THE MOTHERFUCKING POLICE
No, you don't even answer questions you think couldn't possibly incriminate you -- YOU DON'T ANSWER SHIT.
There is absolutely nothing you could tell, say, state, offer, claim, express, suggest, proffer, conceptualize, indicate, discuss, confirm, deny, explain, confer, describe, disclose or elaborate that will help you in any way. Ever. Not ever.
Because, with everything, not anything, *EVERY-FUCKING-THING* you say, they will manipulate, contort, pervert, twist, conjure, fabricate, invent, expropriate, conflate, decontextualize, recontextualize, repurpose, malform, conveniently misrecollect and abuse to mold your profile before a court into whatever preconceived concept of you was in their mind before they were ever aware you existed.
The thing that almost no one seems to get is that cops live in their own delusional world where there are two types of people: cops and suspects. If you are not on their side, you are, by definition, on the side against them. It doesn't matter how innocent you are in actual fact and truth, you are a suspect, who cares if you're the wrong one?
They do not work for the public, they work for their inflated ego, the department's revenue stream and the chain of command corrupted from the top down.
Your right not to incriminate yourself is about the only defensive weapon you have against the might and resource of the police, prosecution and co. Use, assert and exploit it excessively and without relent.
This is precisely why I won't give a cop the time of day. I will not speak to a police officer or any other agent of the State under any circumstances.
Cops are not people. Cops are the State, and the State has one interest and one interest only: taking power away from you and keeping it for themselves. That means depriving the one thing you have that gives you any power at all: your Liberty.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
First, the cour majority show themselves blindly side-tracked from the defining issue in the case, which is not the silence, but the police interviewer witnesses having detrimentally characterizedf the defendant's silence. Unless the interview was videotaped, so the jurors could see for themselves, the police witness's description was uncorroborated. It was police "coloratura", an incriminatingly colored description of what could have been a shrug. An indicating by the witness tha he had no idea, perhaps even what a ballistics match was, or if it meant if the shells and gun were the same caliber (guage). he had apparently voluntarily provided to the police for comparing. The case has a stink of police witness adjustment of testimony to achieve a conviction, which the Scotus majority seems to have not smelt at all.
Second, in carefully carving ttheir justifications for their prejudices the majority redefined the Constitution of the United States. They appear to have decided to make it a lawyers document, created by lawyers for lawyers. A document of quibbleries for lawyers to quibble. They characterize the United States' national law a system of law for use by lawyers, between lawyers, among lawyers, its provisions providing protections only to lawyers, who know how and when to play each card. There is no room in the Court Majority's opinion for the non legally trained people of the United States. The people the Constitution's Preamble sates specifically the Constitution's purpose to be to protect the "blessings of liberty" for.
I refuse to comment.
B) You mean "less conservative", not "liberal".
They arent true Scotsman?
Here is an idea.. wake up.. get a clue.. accept or reject what the liberals are doing without trying to play hide-and-seek with your own identity.
"His name was James Damore."
So in other words, we have no rights. Rights are absolutes, if they can be defined or narrowed down to nothingness (like the Supreme Court has enjoyed doing) they cease to become rights and merely exist as privileges to be taken away at will.
Really, what enumerated rights do we in the US have left? I guess we have the third amendment still?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
ask for a attorney and don't say anything and then they can't ask you any more questions.
"Most of us have seen at least enough cop shows to know police must read a suspect their Miranda rights when placing them in custody."
Wrong!
Most of us have seen enough TV to make us MISINFORMED about the world and what really happens.
To set the record straight, reading of Miranda rights is only MANDATORY when you have arrested someone (or have custody of them and enough evidence to arrest them) and you are interrogating them about the crime. Before you have enough evidence to arrest someone you can continue to question them without mirandizing them until you reasonably believe you have enough information to arrest them. Once this happens, further interrogation only admissible in court if the suspect has been mirandized (read their rights). If an officer arrests someone but does not desire to question them about their crime that officer need not mirandize their suspect. Mathematically, as they teach in police academy:
Miranda= Custody + Interrogation.
Absence of both of those factors, Miranda not necessary.
It looks like Texas is redefining more than one freedom. There's the "right to remain silent" and last week Gov Rick Perry signed the "Merry Christmas Bill" and declared that "Freedom Of Religion" doesn't mean "Freedom From Religion." So while you might not celebrate Christmas, you can't stop a school from forcing your kid into doing something Christmas related just because you don't celebrate it. Of course, he framed it as "every has the right" to religious expression. How long will that sentiment last if a Texas school institutes Muslim prayers for all kids to say? What if they ban all kids from eating or drinking in school on Yom Kippur? What if a Wiccan teacher decides to introduce her students to her religious practices? I highly doubt that Gov Perry will be so open minded. (To people like Gov Perry, "Freedom of Religion" means "everyone is free to practice Christianity in their own Church-approved way.")
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Tony Blair made 'silence' an explicit indicator of guilt that could be used as part of the prosecution case. Blair also introduced secret courts- courts where there is a mandatory prison sentence for ANYONE who reveals any detail of what happens inside them, even to their members of parliament (the British equivalent of representative members in the US). These secret courts are NOT for things like spying (although they got extended in that direction too later). No, they were for 'family' issues. like when the State snatches children from their parents.
Blair had been pissed off big time when attempts by his people to mass snatch hundreds of kids from innocent families under the guise of Fabian nonsense like 'satanic abuse' was unravelled by immediate media campaigns in newspapers like The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The parents of the children snatched were able to argue their case to the population of the UK, get their children back, and force massive inquiries into the abuse of the families by the state. Blair swore that he would NEVER allow people-power to frustrate his actions again, and immediately started implementing laws to gag ALL children, parents, relatives and other supporting parties.
It is now a criminal offence in the UK for a child in 'state care' to reveal publicly allegations of abuse to that child by state employees. Blair introduced this law on the back of the so-called 'pin down' scandal when a young woman subject to depraved abuse by the Labour run home she was prisoner at, managed to escape, find a lawyer, and get those responsible for pin-down punished. Blair swore that never again would a child under state care have the ability to bring stories of their abuse to public attention.
The elimination of the Right to Silence was one of Blair's greatest triumphs, along with a massive extension of how long a person may be held uncharged in custody, the removal of most forms of legal aid, privately run prisons, and laws making 'possession' of 'terrorist' literature a criminal offence regardless of intent (technically a Muslim with a chemistry book is a terrorist in the UK, and several have been sent to prison for years on this basis alone- the chemistry book and a given political persuasion being enough for a conviction).
What is cooked in an oven by Blair in Britain will, sooner or later, be on the menu in the USA.
Today, Blair (not Cameron or Clegg or any of the other clowns working for Blair) has you Yanks building up a massive military presence in the British colony of Jordan, in order to tempt you to clash with Putin and his Russian forces in Syria. Your war warmongering psycho, Obama, is even flying a kite about attacking Russian planes over Syria in the guise of a completely illegal 'no-fly zone'. What kind of spanking do you think Putin is going to give you Yank idiots when you shoot one of his planes down?
There is a line directly connecting events like losing your right to silence, and Obama's atrocities in Syria. Russia has one rule. Kill one of ours, and we'll kill 10 of yours, and unlike cowardly Yanks, this does not refer to murdering civilians. When Putin spanked NATO forces in Georgia, the Russians killed vanishing small numbers of civilians, but completely destroyed the entire NATO infrastructure that had been built during the proceeding years.
When Obama shot at a civilian Russian airliner over Syria a few months back, America spent a week losing aircraft in some amazingly spectacular 'accidents'. Blair wants to manoeuvre Obama into a situation where he has nothing to lose by launching nuclear strikes against Iran. This means getting the USA to a position where it says "f**k it, we are the dominant power on the Earth so let's stop pretending we are lawful, moral, or care about the UN. We are going to exercise our might just like Al Capone did, and for the same reason. We are going to do as we like, and murder whoever we want, simply because we are the strongest".
At this point, the USA becomes the formal enemy of Humanity, and the real game can begin.
You know, just throwing that out there. Normally this situation wouldn't arise if you were just doing things the "not illegal" way.
to remain silent. anything you do not say can and will be used against you.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Yeah, pretty much. The "conservatives" on the court have just remade the rules of evidence so that the the absense of evidence can be used in place of evidence. Guilt by accusation!
Orin Kerr has the usual detailed and insightful analysis of the case here (long, worth reading):
http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-texas/
tl;dr - Don't talk to the police.
"I wish to assert my 5th amendment privledge"
"I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me"
"I invoke my 5th amendment privilege"
Don't just pick one - switch it up a little during questioning so you don't sound like such a broken record.
As a nonhuman life form SCOTUS can be kill at will at any time.
SCOTUS in NOT protected by the Endangered Species Act.
SCOTUS is NOT protected by Cruelty to Animals Laws: It is yet to be determined if SCOTUS is an Animal life form.
SCOTUS does not enjoy protections under the Constitution of the United States of America !
All in all, looks like SCOTUS hunting season ! Yeahh ! Would be nice to have a SCOTUS head above the fireplace.
The fact he spoke to the police and refused his right to silence by speaking indicated he waived his rights. If he wanted to waive his rights to all but one question, he needed to clarify which one he was refusing to answer and why. The ruling is logical, reasonable, and wrong.
Selectively answering can be used against you, unless your lawyer (you do have one, right?) indicates which question is refused and why. If his lawyer said "he won't answer that", then it can't be held against you.
And they pick the cases well to run this all the way up. His answer was irrelevant. "Do you think we'll get a ballistics match to your shotgun" is irrelevant when they later did get an exact match. They would likely have gotten the conviction without it, but tried, after all, who would throw out a conviction of an obvious murderer?
Learn to love Alaska
They also didn't finish the story. The guy with the red on his arm just finished a hot dog, and will forever have an arrest on his record for wrong place wrong time and spilled catsup (yes arrests, they show up forever, and are nearly impossible to get removed, even if proven false).
Learn to love Alaska
For those of you who are US citizens, as someone who lives in a part of the world where this privilege against self-incrimination is not recognised, I say - guard this privilege jealously.
It is always a temptation for those in power to water down, as much as they can, rights given to their citizens. In their eyes, these rights make their job difficult. They will try to narrow the scope (Oh, these rights only apply in some exceptional circumstances). They will try to obfuscate (Do you have such rights? No, its not part of the law). They will try to impose restrictions (You only have this right if you take the following steps). They will create new law to circumvent the rights (Sorry, this new law says you no longer have that right).
Over time, rights which are not protected will be whittled down to uselessness. If you think this is hyperbole, go look up, for example, the erosion of consumer rights and the expansion of intellectual property laws. There was a time when the music/game you bought was yours and could be passed down to your son and grandson. Now most of the time you don't even own what you paid for, you only have a limited 'license' to use it, enforced by DRM which is made illegal by law to circumvent. They got away with this because the public allowed them to take away their rights.
I guess they've decided to abandon all pretense of upholding our civil rights, and have decided to dedicate themselves to inventing ever more asinine pretensions to claim that the bill of rights doesn't say what it says.
Fuck those goddamned shysters.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Can we just agree to end the conservative/liberal horse shit when talking about the supreme court (and pretty much everything else)? It's a false polarization meant to suppress individual thought on important matters.
In cases like this it's individual rights vs statism. Simple as that. So-called "conservatives" are big on certain elements of statism, and so-called "liberals" are also big on certain elements of statism (sometimes, but mostly not, the same elements). If the five who formed the majority court opinion happen to be commonly labeled "conservative", that is of no interest to me whatsoever. If they are statist tools, you can bet your ass I am damned interested in that.
In the end, too many of the SC justices are assholes selected by assholes who are elected by slack-jawed morons.
You can not compare a person making an agreement to a Government refusing basic human rights. In one case, the person voluntarily gives up something in order to benefit. In the other, it is a criminal act (defined by the Constitution).
Your logic is broken a 2nd time when you claim that it's someone's view that the 4th and 5th amendments are inalienable. It's not simply someone's opinion, it is the Law that the USA is founded upon. Just in case you are a little slow, here is a simple logic lesson. Law = Rule and Law != Whim
The purpose of Miranda rights is to ensure that both parties are aware of their basic human rights as given them by law.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
PICARD: Do you see what is happening here, Mister Worf?
WORF: Sir?
PICARD: This is not unlike a drumhead trial.
WORF: I do not understand.
PICARD: Five hundred years ago, military officers would upend a drum on the battlefield sit at it and dispense summary justice. Decisions were quick, punishments severe, appeals denied. Those who came to a drumhead were doomed.
WORF: But we know there is a traitor here. J'Dan has admitted his guilt.
PICARD: That's true, and he will stand for his crimes.
WORF: Tarses has all but done the same.
PICARD: How?
WORF: He refused to answer the question about his Romulan grandfather.
PICARD: That is not a crime, Worf. Nor can we infer his guilt because he didn't respond.
WORF: Sir, if a man were not afraid of the truth, he would answer.
PICARD: Oh, no. We cannot allow ourselves think that. The Seventh Guarantee is one of the most important rights granted by the Federation. We cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against a citizen.
WORF: Sir, the Federation does have enemies. We must seek them out.
PICARD: Oh, yes. That's how it starts. But the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mister Worf. I don't like what we have become.
I am John Hurt.
Read the findings. This is as it has been since 1948. This is not a new interpretation of the law.
I know the best policy is simply not to volunteer any information to the police when approached. What is the best way to make it clear that you do not wish to speak with them, without raising suspicion? A lot of angry people on the internet seem to think the best option is simply to wave your pocket copy of the constitution in their face and yell "I know my rights!" If you're a law abiding citizen and have done nothing wrong, and want nothing to do with any wrongdoing of another person, what's the best (I'm assuming polite) response to an inquiry you do not want to indulge?
It was long before the Roberts Court.
And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no conservative.
But I think fnj has the better response overall.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Certain predators get triggered when you try to flee. Its better to say in a very soft voice "Am I free to go now officer" while backing away. Keep your hands away from your clothing and move slowly. Dont stare, because that can trigger an attack. Brightly colored garments or low hanging denim can incite an attack.
Remember, if you are not inside your home with the door safely locked, you are in their territory. Be smart / Be safe.
Who is this Supreme Court Of the Americas? A court over two whole continents? They seem like awful important people. Why have I never heard of them?!?
(Hint: It's the "Supreme Court of the United States", or SCOTUS for short. There is no SCOTA)
... then you must be guilty. Now they have it all figured out.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Admissible, from the word Admit meaning to permit entry.
No, it was made admissible when it was permitted to be entered as evidence. In other words, it was made admissible when the judge decided that it was.
Yes, I'm quibbling, but it is an important point. The law isn't a computer program running on some principle of physics. It is (unfortunately) a set of strongly worded guidelines interpreted by human beings. What the law is depends on what those in power decide that it is. What is "admissible" varies, not based on some impartial reality, but on what judges are willing to admit.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
America is dead and gone. Time to start over.
If instead of refusing specific questions, he'd have remained silent from the beginning.
Yet another example of how talking to the police is a bad idea.
Is that gone too? We just had the NSA news a couple of days ago.
I suppose "the land of the free" only applies to the government. They are pretty much free to do whatever they want.
If he's not free to leave then either he's been arrested illegally (no Miranda rights read to him) or he's being kidnapped (which is illegal).
In neither case does the judge have a right to keep him contained and he can walk.
Anglo-saxon people think weirdly, therefore it is important to remind them that murder trials are not games at the bar or material for dramatized TV shows or revenue source for attorneys at law or treatises in the interpretation of constitutional laws.
The SOLE purpose of murder trials is to put the perpetrators behind bars or preferably into the electric chair, so they won't re-offend. Not solving murders or letting the perps get away on whatever excuses (including double jeopardy) only leads to break-down in public's trust in the courts, therefore relatives and friends of the victims will seek to deliver punishment with their own hands (so called vendetta).
Modern crime fighting should generally abandon its reliance on witness testimony and guilty pleads. Evidence should come from objective science and tech, especially DNA and CCTV. In the age of micro-electronics, it is reasonable to except or even mandate that people carry the effective equivalent of personal "black boxes" (like a mobile phone).
Any tech that help prevent homicides or at least helps nail perps should be used without regard to such nebulous items as liberty and freedoms and privacy. Lax laws originating from the old ages, when human life on average was just 35 years old and violent death was quotidial, need to be abolished. Each and every homicide in our current age should be considered a "mini Holocaust" and perps should be punished with the same severity that fell upon the top nazi.
"You can not compare a person making an agreement to a Government refusing basic human rights"
Yes you fucking can.
The agreement with the government is the same as the agreement with the company. Your rights trump the agreement. "these terms do not affect your statutory rights" ring a bell?
But if that is made CRIMINAL, then the private individual IS NOT the party any more: the government is. Therefore if they want the right to have you arrested for breech of contract, then they are now government. They have contracted out the force that is what YOU pretend is the difference between them, therefore no difference remains.
But without that, they still have no more right to silence you than the government do under an NDA and your rights to free speech, the whistleblower laws and all other appurtenances of the legal system that means that you should follow the contract you agreed to, apply.
You cannot therefore waive your rights, even if the contract requires it. And a contract so written will AT LEAST have those items removed from it if brought to court and could (though in the USA will not, because you're all up the arse of corporations) have it completely struck.
E.g. a mortgage loan, if the lender puts some information on there that is incorrect, now no longer has a loan on you. The house you just bought with that loan IS STILL YOURS. The loan is annulled.
So she has the right to remain silent, but cannot remain silent when questioned.
Did you REALLY write that without parsing it???
Does the answer HAVE to be "yes" or "no" and no other answer?
Or can they say "There is an altercation underway and we want you to stay put until we know what's going on over there in case you get involved in it"?
Seems like the police do not want to talk to the people.
So why the fuck is it so hated to say "don't talk to the police"?
The supreme court has decided we all need to become constitutional lawyers just to maintain our rights.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
The UK equivalent of "Miranda Rights" (why does everything have to have an unrelated name?) has said:
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
or words to that effect since about 1912.
Of course you have the right to be silent. And of course the court will be able to draw inferences in the absence of your answers. If you don't speak for a month and then tell police, after hearing all the evidence they have, that fantastical situation X was what you meant all along, then of course it's reasonable to assume that you're just making it up now that you know all the facts and were silent before because it's a fabrication that you didn't have at the time. You have the RIGHT to do that, but it doesn't mean that it won't come back to bite you.
That's been in law since God-knows-when, and the arrest warning is really just a formal restatement so that you aren't tricked into thinking you MUST answer any question a policeman asks you ("Have you stopped beating your wife?" - an unanswerable question either way).
You have the right to remain silent, in any decent first-world legal system. Nowhere does it say that that right is without cost. Or else, you'd never say anything, at all, whatsoever in court and they'd have to convict/release you without your side of the story at all. Similarly you have the right to a lawyer. It doesn't mean you have to have one, have a particular one, or use the incompetent one that they give you.
However, even in a UK court, "Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence."
Welcome to the 20th/21st Century legal system. If you're stupid enough to stay completely silent and/or not seek legal advice at the first opportunity, that's your problem.
the somewhat "hard" way.
Someone committed a hit & run in a parking lot on campus. Campus police find the vehicle, pull the parking registration and mistakenly match it to me (my permit # was partly the same, but was for an entirely different set of lots -- in part I blame the university parking number system which was a 4 digit number within one of many "zones" meaning there were likely tons of people with the same 4 digit number but in different zones).
Knowing that I was 100% not involved, I began answering their questions. Very soon the conversation turned very confrontational and silly. Everything from saying I should "man up" to playing silly "gotcha" games by feeding me info about the situation and then when I later repeated it asking 'how did you know that!'.
Luckily I soon realized the problem (they had screwed up matching the parking tag to me) and it was resolved without further issue. However, looking back I should have a.) not talked at all and b.) after the fact not let them get away with gross incompetence. If the officers had been corrupt, not just incompetent, they could have easily manipulated me into some sort of incrimination (either an unrelated violation or something they could present as 'evidence' of my involvement).
Anyway, lesson learned. Even if you are 100% innocent, never EVER talk to the police. Simply state politely that you require legal representation.
Cheerfully support unlimited spying on everyone all the time. You have the government you deserve and asked for.
Worst Supreme Court since the days of Dred Scott.
... nothing more to say.
When A cop is talking to you all you say is, "Am I being detained? Am I free to leave?" over and over and over. You say nothing else and do not trust the police in any way at any time. The police are not there to protect you or be your friend. They certainly are not there to help you in any way. Never EVER give them any information or say anything but, "Thank you officer, can I leave now? Am I free to leave?" If you want your rights you have to play their game.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
She has the right to not incriminate herself PERIOD.
Incorrect. She has the right to not be forced to incriminate herself. She is perfectly free to incriminate herself if she so chooses. She may incriminate herself with her actions or words even if that was not her intent. The 5th amendment ONLY prohibits the government from forcing an admission from you.
FTA: "Genovevo Salinas freely answer several questions posed by officers about two murders that had occurred in Houston, Texas, in December 1992, prosecutors were free to use his refusal to answer one specific question - about the murder weapon - at his trial, according to the ruling."
You can't have your implied right to remain silent and then disregard your right to remain silent. Especially since he had not been placed under arrest and mirandized prior to the question and he did not explicitly invoke the 5th amendment.
IF he had been under arrest, or IF he had explicit declared the 5th or even said "I would like to remain silent on all further questions, I want a lawyer" we wouldn't be here talking about this.
What if he had spoke, then chose to exercise silence and continued doing so? It was the resuming of speech that cause the problem, imho.
They used his silence to convict him? Really? That's all you need? Being silent during key questions doesn't mean he's guilty. It should make them suspicious and investigate the matter. i.e testing the shotgun marks.
... But it may harm your defense if you do not mention, during questioning, something you later rely on in court.
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
I will never set foot in the United States (willingly). You should leave if you reside there now.
You've never seen someone waving the bill of rights around?
I especially love to wave my 2nd Amendment rights around ;-)
Or maybe he shouldn't have shot two people in their home in Houston. That usually makes these questions a bit easier to answer.
Wrong does not make right.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
So rights are a privilege now to be dictated by loose wording and interpretation...fuck. that. shit....oh wait...should be old news in light of all the other bullshittery USDOJ spews.
This has always been the case, and it has far more to do with individual state police forces and prosecutors than with the DOJ.
A cop on the street is not spending his time thinking "I want to maximize bad guy X's rights." He is thinking "X is a bad guy, so I want to find out about the crime and throw him away."
All that rights do is they give the cop a script he has to follow if he wants a conviction. If he does not follow the script, or if there is something missing that he needs for the script and he is unwilling to lie, then the case can be thrown out, and bad guy X is on the street. It's like giving a scientist a lab protocol.
So it's far better than not having rights, because (1) it regiments police behavior to some degree (2) it slightly reduces the consequences of abuse of power and (3) you can learn the script and how to use it to minimize harm. But that doesn't mean it makes sense, just that it's a lot better than it is in many places in the world.
Of course, cops lie. That's a part of their job. And juries tend to believe cops more than criminals. Which is stupid but true. So it's a pretty terrible system, but rights can still be useful.
Truth. I know this first hand and also from lawyer friends. First thing to remember is that the police are not obligated to tell the truth. In fact, they are trained in various methods of deception and manipulation to get you to talk. [p] Second thing to remember is this: cops are going to do what they're going to do. You can object to a search (and you should, always), and not say anything (never talk unless your attorney says it is ok), and the police will still search, they will still arrest you. That's their job, and the prosecutor and judge sort things out, if you are lucky. Asserting your rights won't intimidate the police, or probably stop them, but it may help you later. Oh, you can also sue them afterwards, but do you really have the $$, Time, and do you really want to become a "person of interest"? Good luck!
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Deputy Dan is your friend! (google it)
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Any totalitarian government would love to have a Supreme Court making decisions like this one. Let's take rights away from people with little or no money to defend themselves and give special priviliges to those with big bucks who want to buy elections and political favors.
Ain't it great to live in a Police State?
We've heard that phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" scads of times throughout our television viewing experience, but given that this ruling came *after* this person acted as he did, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So to abide by the law (at least in this case) all you have to do is know the minds of how the SCOTUS will rule in the case months or years before they render a verdict. sucks.
Anything you say, can and may be used against you. The Miranda warning doesn't say that your silence won't be used against you
Not a surprise to anyone smart enough to actually pass a bar exam (in any state, not just one of the hard states) or get better than a C- in Criminal Procedure. You do not have a right to remain silent until custodial interrogation -> that's why they read the rights AFTER the cuffs are on. So if you are in that situation and reasonably free to leave, LEAVE!!!!! If you stick around and just look stupid as the police/FBI/ATF/US Marshalls/etc are asking you questions you don't want to answer then you probably are stupid, and maybe you should consider some reading during all the free time you have to look forward to in prison.
Another FYI - just because you see something happen in court on TV or a movie doesn't mean that's actually the way that our legal system works or that there are not specific rules around the generalized scene that is being portrayed. Just like Optimus Prime and the XMen do not exist in real life, most of the legal stuff in TV and movies is make believe.
***********The advice provided herein is not legal advice and is being provided for discussion purposes only. Any advice herein cannot and should not be used in place of retaining counsel for your specific problem. If you have a problem, call a lawyer, they can usually help you handle your issue for a lot less $ than you would think****************
"Miranda Invoked"
--
Another fine opinion from The Fucking Psychopath
Has a copyright on silence. Use it at your peril. :)
Never voluntarily go to talk to the cops without having sought the advice of the lawyer, after retaining their services. (Yes, it'll cost money, but usually not much, and once you pay the lawyer you can spill every incriminating thing you did to them and it'll be covered by attorney-client privelage.) This is particularly important if you actually did what the cops think you did, or if it looks like the cops are really looking at you as a suspect.
About 49 minutes total. Very worth it.
You're telling me that I need to watch 49 minutes of video in order to learn how to exercise my "inalienable" rights under the Constitution?
I seriously doubt that that's what our founding fathers intended.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
My first and only serious encounter with law was when I went through my divorce. I pretty much memorized my state's family code and was sure that I stood on firm legal ground. It turns out that there is a lot more to it. The courts have decided that certain actions are Prima Facie evidence of other things. That is, if you do X you are automatically guilty of Z unless you can beyond a shadow of doubt prove that you aren't guilty of Z. So the courts add to the laws by interpreting X as Z but they also simply ignore parts of the family code they don't want to apply or enforce. My state's family code is short but there are several volumes of law books dealing with how the courts interpret and apply the laws. Yes, it is very easy to loose your rights. For example, if law enforcement starts to conduct an illegal search and you don't object than you will have no grounds to have any evidence excluded. Your silence is considered tacit approval if you are able to object but don't. Likewise, if you don't state that you are exercising your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination than law enforcement can keep working on you. One of the things that is obscene to me is law enforcement can read a suspect his Miranda rights than interrogate him for 12 hours telling him the opposite and if the suspect incriminates himself they can use it. Also, a suspect lying to law enforcement can have the lie used against them but law enforcement can lie about anything to get a suspect to incriminate themselves. If you are in trouble with the law you need a lawyer before doing anything. What you think you know about the law isn't enough when you are under arrest or suspicion.
Thanks Obama.
So how does the sequence of (1) "Am I Under Arrest", (2) "Can I Go Now?" work during a traffic stop?
It generates an arrest.
There are no such things as your Miranda rights. They are Miranda warnings, named after the case Miranda v. Arizona. Your rights exist whether you are giving the warnings or not.
...and we may choose to allow you that privilege (oops.. right) Should you choose to exercise that privilege (oops , right...) we'll know you're not a "troublemaker" and when we convict you we'll help you get a good view of the courtyard and a nice straight cellmate ;-)
I used a very drryy humor in the recipe. :)