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.
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.
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?
so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them?
No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.
The ACLU has a "bust card" that helps clarify the matter. The person in the article should have kept his fucking mouth shut, period.
"... the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene."
Correct. It was what he did say, combined with what he did not say, that led to his conviction.
That is why, even if you are "innocent" you should NEVER speak to the police about anything that involves you at all.
HIGHLY recommended for everybody to watch, which explains why very clearly and in a no-nonsense way, are THIS VIDEO (part 1) and THIS VIDEO (part 2). About 49 minutes total. Very worth it.
These are not some kind of government-conspiracy nuts but a defense attorney and a police detective.
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.
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.
Of course you have that right.... but your employer also has the legal right to sue you, and the NDA that you signed would ensure that he would win.
But you wouldn't go to jail for it... nor would you necessarily be breaking any laws by divulging such information unless it involved state secrets of national security.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't believe that's true. To quote Findlaw.com
Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity.
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions.
You have the right to shut up at any point but I don't believe you can shut up and then start talking and then shut up again. This was the point of debate in the IRS congressional hearing where the manager made a statement and then plead the 5th.
No, criticizing the government is one of the most important uses of free speech, but it extends far beyond that. The reason a NDA could be legally binding is because it's a contract with a private entity. However, it would still have to fall within the bounds of contract law. So, if the terms were unreasonable, such as no disclosure for 50 years, or there was a compelling public interest, like being asked via NDA to cover over up a crime, the contract would be invalid.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
When speaking to a police officer, there are only two things to say:
(1) "Am I Under Arrest"
Which will generate either a yes or no. Any answer other than "Yes" prompts the following question:
(2) "Can I Go Now?"
Which will generate either a yes or no. Any answer other than "Yes" prompts the following question:
(1) "Am I Under Arrest"
repeat....
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org