Posted on 07/02/2013 9:13:37 AM PDT by RC one
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute explains that the Salinas v. Texas case was intended to be about whether prosecutors during a trial could cast aspersions on a defendant’s silence during questioning that took place prior to arrest — prior to the defendent being told he had the right to remain silent. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that they wouldn’t need to rule on the matter because the defendant had never invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection. This decision means that it’s the responsibility of the individual to know about the protections offered by the Fifth Amendment even prior to arrest and to actually verbally invoke it:
what rights? i hereby designate you as a terrorist. now you can remain silent all you want, with a 12v battery connected to your nuts... you will tell them shit they dont even want to hear... Jailhouse is full of lawyers. Besides they already know every fukin thing about you... the CONSTITUTION has been SHITCANNED folks... by someone who wont even release his college transcripts... the most transparent regime in hsitory.... coupled with the lawless DOJ ,the PATRIOT ACT (IF YOU HAVE PATRIOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR NAME THE IRS WILL FUK YOU) and last but not least Gestapo/DHS.... and FEMA....Sieg Heil.. Sieg Heil... Sieg Heil. HOW DID GERMANY GET THAT WAY? HOW DID WE GET THIS WAY?
No clue on the first one.
Definitely Homeland Security can bash you in the head and jail you for saying something disagreeable. In fact, they get double points for that, if you're Christian or a veteran.
No clue on the first one.
Definitely Homeland Security can bash you in the head and jail you for saying something disagreeable. In fact, they get double points for that, if you're Christian or a veteran.
And today the judge ordered that comment stricken and informed the jury to forget that they heard it. and Zimmerman is still on trial despite his polite candor.
I’ll just agree with all of that before it gets pulled. LOL
Why are police officers required to inform you of your 6th Amendment rights and how to use them, but you are required to know and how to exercise your 5th Amendment rights?
I think that's what the court just decided; what you don't say can be used against you as well.
THIS IS A TRUE STORY-—the mob boss was facing bigtime jailtime b/c of all his crimes......so he hired a little lawyer just out of law school to defend him.
How was the little lawyer going to defend the mob guy against a mountain of evidence? It did not look good.
In his summation to the court, the prosecutor told the judge the mob boss was guilty as sin-—and they had all the evidence needed. But, he said, the mob guy’s biggest admission of guilt was invoking the fifth -— not even getting up to defend himself.
The little lawyer jumped to his feet and asked for a mistrial-—which was granted-—b/c everybody knows in a court of law one cannot attribute a motive when invoking the fifth.
The mob boss went free and the little lawyer was roundly applauded for his work.
It was not til several years later that the little lawyer found out the mob had paid the prosecutor to make the statement.
So the Hillary Clinton "I don't recall" non-answer answer is the best route to go.
This SCOTUS decision creates a catch-22, with several angles. (These are subject to whimsical change, but I believe are accurate.)
1) Many police departments have long used the technique that they are not arresting a person, they are detaining them, so do not have to give them a Miranda warning. If you ask if you are being detained, they will likely respond that “it depends on what you have to tell me.”
2) The federal courts have found that if you say anything before getting your Miranda warning, it can be used against you, as a “spontaneous confession.”
3) The federal courts have also found that when someone is arrested and Mirandized, if the police release them from arrest, they are no longer Mirandized. And if you gave information during the Mirandized period, while they cannot use it *directly* against you, they *may* use that information to discover evidence that they *can* use against you. Then they can re-arrest and re-Mirandize you, and use that evidence against you in court.
4) Once a police investigation has begun, the right of privacy is very sketchy indeed. Recorded evidence can be surreptitiously obtained by putting two suspects together in the back of a patrol car, in restrooms, or any other room under police control, *or* that could be considered as a “public place” in nature.
5) Police use numerous tricks to obtain DNA and fingerprints from objects a suspect has touched in a place under their control or in a public place. This is why you never accept drinks, even water, from the police, even if they have kept you from drinking for hours. If you have to drink, use a small piece of paper to pick up the cup, pour the water into your mouth without touching the cup with your lips, set the cup down and eat the small piece of paper.
6) With this latest SCOTUS decision, there will have to be a future decision on whether if you invoke your rights while being detained, if they do indeed apply, or if the police can ignore them. Thus, the best bet is to invoke your rights, then in response to any other statements or questions, say “Please direct all statements and questions to my attorney.”
In effect, it is like a POW giving his name, rank, serial number and date of birth, nothing more. And remember to speak to no one else until you are in a safe and private place, far away from the police.
Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible decision.
I officially loathe Robert’s Court.
Cops aren’t required to Mirandize you of your 6th, it is the 5th.
Right to counsel is in the 6th Amendment.
“Officer, am I free to go, or are you detaining me?”
“I am not resisting, but I am going to remain silent.”
“I understand you are doing your job, but I never consent to a search.”
Let me see if I understand this? I have a “Right” but it doesn’t start until after they tell you you have that “Right”. Yeah, right.
Or, when is a right not a right? ans: Before they tell you it’s your right.
I guess I’ll never be smart enough to be on the supreme court. They are so smart they can figure this out.
Danny the cops we used to know no longer exist. If they ask you a question today it’s not with the purpose of finding out the truth. Its about getting you thus proving they were right to stop you and question you whether behind the wheel or on foot.
that’s a lot of good information right there. If they’re going to treat us all like criminals, I guess we have to start thinking like criminals.
George was just so thoroughly convinced that he had done nothing wrong that he didn’t expect any problems.
Basically if the police stop you the best course is to ask if you're being detained. If they say no then thank them politely and walk away. If they say yes then say 'get me a lawyer' and shut up.
any answer is a waiving of the fifth-amendment rights, as the House Oversight Committee is asserting… and we have a great legal Catch-22.
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.