Did we just lose the right to remain silent?

[pokerfan]

So now we don't have 5th amendment rights until we're Mirandized?

Supreme Court: Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent.

The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.

Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.

[darkangel218]

1. Damn...

[premium]

2. Just more erosion of our rights.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

[msanthrope]

6. No...sadly, tv has made us all think that Miranda happens when the police speak..

It does not...a person can and should invoke the Miranda rights the minute they come into contact with police. And they should invoke their Sixth Amendment rights immediately.

[premium]

10. I couldn't agree with you more,

and you know damn good and well that LE will not voluntarily read the Miranda warning until forced to.

During my career, anytime I came into contact with citizens I suspected of a crime, I would immediately let them know of their Miranda warning, it pissed my superiors off, but to me, it was the right thing to do.

[msanthrope]

15. Lenny Briscoe always read Miranda at arrest. The truth is...if you wait for the LEOs...you ain't

going to get a Miranda warning until you're in an interrogation room with the form in front of you.

So any utterance you make in front of the police, whether it is in response to a question or something you just say... is evidence the can and will be used against you. invoke early and often.

[premium]

19. Yep.

And I would further add that unless you're being detained, don't say a fucking thing except to say "unless I'm being detained, I've got nothing to say and I'm leaving".

[msanthrope]

23. Correct..."Am I being detained" is a phrase you should repeat like a parrot

on crack. If you aren't..leave.

[loli phabay]

26. whats the saying, he had the rigjt to remain silent but not the ability

For some reason some people get the whole interaction with cops thing wrong, i dont know how but they think miranda should be read at point of contact and if its not then what you say is inadmissible. Also folks saying you want a lawyer when you get pulled over for a bust tail light is no problem but your more likely just to get the ticket rather than the advice and warning.

[msanthrope]

3. No..it means you must invoke quickly. It's not a ruling I agree with, but I always advise

people to invoke the 5th and the 6th...ASAP.

[NightWatcher]

5. I like to assert my 3rd as well

Then go watch someone look it up.







(Its re: the forced housing of troops in your home)

[msanthrope]

9. I know what quartering is!!! Very funny! nt

[loli phabay]

27. lol, not sure how i would react to that one.

[NightWatcher]

4. He answered some questions but not others

Don't be selective. Don't answer some that you think are ok and then refuse others. Zip your lip until you get an attorney.

[msanthrope]

7. EXACTLY....you do yourself no favors by answering some questions and not others.

Answer none.

[LWolf]

14. That's good sense. Still...

we have no rights unless someone directly states them to us right before we actually use them?

[msanthrope]

16. No...you have the rights but you must INVOKE them. They are not self-executing.

I don't agree with that but that is the law as it currently stands. invoke your 5th and 6th Amendment rights early and often.

[enlightenment]

31. Kind of defeats the nature of inalienable rights

if you have to invoke them.

Sad.

[msanthrope]

33. I agree. I think fundamental rights are self-executing. All the more reason to vote 2014

and help get Justices in who agree.

[Deep13]

8. Everyone already knows of the right to remain silent! nt

[msanthrope]

11. David Simon on Miranda...this is the best explanation and was taught in my law school..

http://books.google.com/books?id=N8LS0b0_bvUC&pg=PT220&lpg=PT227&ots=qMhkh_6ehM&dq=david+simon+miranda&output=html_text

You are a citizen....

[midnight]

17. Looks like a good read... I went to the link, and was unable to see the whole page... Looks

like the edge of the page is blocked...

[msanthrope]

20. It's from his book 'Homicide' which is worth the buy. nt

[Moonwalk]

36. Most is readable--meaning you can make out what the word at the edge is...

...and that is the last word there at the edge. So if you can guess at it (which I could) there's little problem reading on. Just keep hitting "next" page at the top and you'll pretty much get the whole thing.

[midnight]

40. Ok... thanks.... I was wondering if it was fixable?

[pokerfan]

22. You can remain silent

but now that silence can be used as evidence of your guilt? Seems to be what Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are saying here.

It all seems sort of almost ridiculously terrifying, this new idea that in order to claim your Fifth Amendment, you need to know how to call the on-the-fly legal equivalent of "safesies." Your right to remain silent just got more complicated, and it will require potential criminals to be more informed about their protections and the linguistic details on how to invoke them. "But does it really mean that the suspect must use the exact words 'Fifth Amendment'? How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words are legally magic?" Breyer wrote.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-v-texas-ruling-explained/66309/

[msanthrope]

24. You can remain silent...but you must be totally silent. You can't participate in some part

of the interrogation and then decide you're not going to answer certain questions.



invoke your right to silence early and often and keep your mouth shut.

[sharp_stick]

28. Thanks for the clarification

I hadn't followed it that closely and missed this crucial bit.

[pokerfan]

35. Part of the traditional Miranda warning

used to include the following: If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

So if you're interviewed by the police and the questioning takes a dark turn (let's assume your innocent) because you responded to their earlier questions, you've surrendered the right to stop at any time?

[msanthrope]

37. No..if it takes a dark turn you stop, invoke, and refuse to answer further. Don't try

to cherrypick what you are going to answer.

[pokerfan]

38. Sounds like he did that except say the magic words

Because he was "free to leave at that time," they did not give him Miranda warnings. The police then asked Salinas questions. And Salinas answered until the police asked him whether the shotgun from his home "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder. At that point Salinas fell silent.

That silence was then used against Salinas in court, and he was eventually convicted. But the bigger question in revisiting this 20-year-old murder case was whether or not prosecutors were allowed to point to that silence, and win a case using Salinas' own silence against him.

<...>

It all seems sort of almost ridiculously terrifying, this new idea that in order to claim your Fifth Amendment, you need to know how to call the on-the-fly legal equivalent of "safesies." Your right to remain silent just got more complicated, and it will require potential criminals to be more informed about their protections and the linguistic details on how to invoke them. "But does it really mean that the suspect must use the exact words 'Fifth Amendment'? How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words are legally magic?" Breyer wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-decided-silence-used-against-161934950.html

[msanthrope]

43. I agree with Breyer. I'm not surprised that the conservatives on the court

are tightening the invoke...but rather than see this as a 'police-driven' right, perhaps Americans need to see these rights as their own..they are capable of taking charge.

[madokie]

12. This is texas

Hell they're a whole different country, or many want to be anyway.

[Rex]

21. Some of the idiots here want to go back to being a nation.

The rest of us wish they would go create this nation somewhere else...maybe on the Sun or Venus.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. When detained, before Miranda, demand a lawyer

That's the best...and yes.

[msanthrope]

18. Very bad advice. Very. You should INVOKE your 5th and 6th amendments

at the same time. If you invoke the 6th without the invocation of the fifth you are still up shit's creek.

Please stop giving out incorrect legal advice.

[loli phabay]

30. seems that bad advice is given a lot nowadays, lots of misunderstanding

Not helped by bar room lawyers with google. Ive seen a'm lot of younger people who believe that they cant be arrested unless their lawyer is present, i blame the tv for this stuff.

[libodem]

25. YES

But not the part where everything thing you say can and will be held against you.

[graham4anything]

29. Thanks Ralph Nader. Because of course, Al Gore would have nominated the same SCOTUS.

[lilithsrevenge12]

32. Wonder how long it will take them to read rights now? nt

[loli phabay]

34. probuably the same as now, i cant see it making a difference

It will still be custody and interrogation equals miranda.

[TransitJohn]

39. Snowden is a fucking traitor!!!!! And a coward!! And his girlfriend pole dances!!

[struggle4progress]

41. SCOTUS has been chipping away at Miranda for decades now. My understanding from the news so far

is this:

They don't have to Mirandize you until you're arrested. If you voluntarily start talking before you're arrested, they can use what you say. And if you voluntarily start talking then also voluntarily stop talking before your arrested, without explicitly citing your Constitutional rights, then not only can they use what you say, they can also use the fact that you stopped talking as evidence against you

[CakeGrrl]

42. Conservative majority decision.

Another reminder of the consequences of a GOP president.

[Lefty Nast]

44. You can still remain silent

You can still remain silent--but the powers that be can shaft you with it in court...