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
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.
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?
What happened to the spirit of the law vs. letter of the law? Isn't it why there are judges?
No. Judges will usually side with the law, either because that's their job, or because that's what keeps Big Legal in business (depending on who you ask). (IMHO it's because Judges often worry about being seen as "soft on crime" and losing re-election.)
Spirit vs. letter of the law is what juries are there for. Judges and lawyers often suppress this information from jurors, though.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richilieu
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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
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.
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.
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.
> One hundred responses and not a single one interested as to whether the suspect is actually guilty of the crime or not.
His guilt, sir or madam, is irrelevant. This is a change in case law, which concerned citizens need to share with others: If you say anything but the legal minimum, you're giving away an advantage to the prosecution which can be used against you even if innocent.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
Of course he's guilty. Why else would the police have arrested him? :p
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.
"Where were you when you killed your girlfriend?"
Your honor, the suspect failed to answer the question. Clearly they are guilty!!!!
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.
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.
"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.
No, I don't think any of this is about the artificial distinction between liberal and conservative. We've lumped a wide variety of political thought into a simplistic binary choice. This also in turn tends to make people think about everything in binary terms. So someone may think "I'm liberal, and I believe the spirit of the law is very important, therefore all true liberals will think the same way", which is faulty logic. This binary view leaves no room for political candidates whom you can agree with wholeheartedly on 10 stances but disagree with strongly on 10 different stances.
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.
You're a motherfucking retarded cunt, you know that? Did you even bother to read the motherfucking ruling you retarded shitbag?
I'm confused. Is the ac a cunt or a shitbag? Or are you suggesting they're one in the same? If so, how exactly does that work? Do you use a funnel? Or do you shit in a bag and then pipe it in like icing on a cake? Or is it a one-person thing where you construct a curved trough sort of thing that fits nicely over the crotch and directs the shit forward to its receptacle? How long is it expected to remain in there, just a few minutes or do you leave it there overnight to allow the different flavors to merge and mingle? In other words, do you consider this an eat-it-now, or eat-it-later thing?
I'm also not clear on the "retarded" part. Since that term is traditionally applied in the context of intelligence, are you suggesting that cunts and/or shitbags are typically possessive of intelligence, but in the case of the ac, that intelligence has not "properly" formed? Or is this simply a reflection of position, i.e. not advanced, like the way advanced and retarded are used in relation to the throttle in an airplane?
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 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?
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.
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.