Posted on 06/01/2010 8:02:32 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
The Supreme Court says suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke their Miranda protection during interrogations.
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said Tuesday suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Don’t really have a problem with this, honestly.
It removes an option for a sleazy lawyer to get someone off.
Do you know Miranda?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61nYwoswwyI
"I don't want to talk to you any more", or "I won't answer any more questions"?
A suspect must use the magic word, "silent"?
Besides which, if you haven’t memorized this phrase by now, you should have.
“I am exercising my right to remain silent until after I can consult with my lawyer. Please call him, here is the number.”
Alternately:
“I was in fear for my life. I do not feel well and would like medical attention. I will not give a statement until I can speak with my lawyer.”
“A suspect must use the magic word, “silent”?”
Or, the foreign equivalent.....
Wow, how many times have you been arrested?
Another alternate: I respectfully drink the 5th on the grounds that anything I say might incinerate me.
Let me see if I have this right. In order to remain silent you have to speak up.
Yes, you must always us “the magic words” or your rights will not appear!
What if one actually remains silent. Does that count?
“Deseo quedarse silencioso” should just about do it.
So, unless you declare your intent to remain silent, the interrogation can/will continue. Once a detainee/arrested person declares intent to remain silent, the interrogtor may not continue asking questions-good!
While I disagree on the point that one must actually speak (or pehaps write a statement?) to declare such intent. On the other hand, any further questioning by any one may consitutue a breach of the subjects consittutional rights, subject to action (is this correct?), then it is a good thing.
Often, interrogators interrupt sessions in order to create a segue, allowing a new tact or to review anything already stated, especially if the subject begins to get closed-mouthed.
Also note, that anything one says before being mirandized is admissable in court, and often folks incriminate themselves to the nth degree long before a cop mirandizes them. As long as the cop doesn’t ask any questions, then he is just listening; unsolicted information is not subject to self incrimination (at least in the military system-not certain about the civil side).
Bottomline:
Rehearse your declaration of silence often-a generic statement that is not incident specific should be in everyne’s repetoire (under stress/duress, you’ll only say clearly what you have practiced, logical , rational thought can be elusive during high stress).
As a CCW trainer, I advise clients, based on input from sevral prosecuting attorney’s, to immediately tell LEOs a simple, short and pointed statement that indicates your willingness to cooperate, but only after you have consulted with your attorney-and then stick to it. Some states require a person to identify themselves upon lawful request of an LEO, so I would not hesitate in handing over a form of ID-even if it is homemade (drivers license is for driving, not general ID). For CCW purposes, if your state allows separate nopn-drivers endorsement (like MO), then simply present it to the LEOs. If in custody, concisely tell them where it is in your wallet, but specify that you do not consent to search of person or property-they will anyway (in a shooting scenario).
Oh, and most importanly, DON’T get into trouble, or have anything on your person tha tis obvioulsy illegal (like drugs, illegal weapons etc).
Good Luck!
A suspect can stay silent all he/she wants but you must vocally state that you wish to remain silent in order to stop the cops from asking questions.
I wonder if it would also stop the good guy/bad guy cops from bantering back and forth among themselves in the interrogation room, asking no questions, but speculating on whether, for example, the sadistic, drunken lethal injection tech would hit the right vein on the 6th or 7th try?
Hey Supes, we need another ruling..
Point is that you can't confess to a murder and then get your confession thrown out based on "the right to remain silent".
In short, you may have a right to remain silent but if you don't invoke it by refusing to answer questions, you can't get what you actually did say thrown out later.
I think this is a good thing.
If the perp does not say explicitly “I want to remain silent” and then gives himeself up, that will not now be ruled inadmissible.
So they DON’T have a right to remain silent. They have a right to SAY they will remain silent.
Words no longer mean things, apparently.
‘invocO my derecho a mantener silencio. quiero hablar con mi abogado por favor!”
Why isn't there an equivalent Miranda requirement for people to speak, or to print a newspaper? Why don't you have to declare your right to speak or to publish, before that right is allowed?
"You have the right to speak. If you give up the right to speak, anything you might have said will not be heard by anyone. You have the right to publish your words. If you cannot afford a word processor, access to a public word processor will be provided for you."
Now. Say the magic word, or you won't be allowed to speak.
Is there an exception for mimes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.