• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Zyphlin said:
You can remain silent for as long as you want, but the cops are absolutely free to question you even if you’re clearly not giving answers.
Click to expand...

Though if you do invoke your right to remain silent, with the request for counseling [a lawyer] right after, doesn't the interrogation have to cease until said attorney is present?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Travelsonic said:
Though if you do invoke your right to remain silent, with the request for counseling [a lawyer] right after, doesn't the interrogation have to cease until said attorney is present?
Click to expand...

You are correct sir.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

jambalaya said:
You are correct sir.
Click to expand...

I believe that if you invoke your right to remain silent alone (without requesting a lawyer), the interrogation must stop. In this case, the guy didn't explicitly state he was invoking his right to remain silent.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Travelsonic said:
Though if you do invoke your right to remain silent, with the request for counseling [a lawyer] right after, doesn't the interrogation have to cease until said attorney is present?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you request an attorney present then they can't ask you any further questions until such happens, or if they do anything you say is not admissable.

You just want to be silent, then remain silent.

You want to potentially end the questioning, ask for legal councel.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

aps said:
I believe that if you invoke your right to remain silent alone (without requesting a lawyer), the interrogation must stop. In this case, the guy didn't explicitly state he was invoking his right to remain silent.
Click to expand...

From what I understand from this thread and a bit of research, that is the federal law now due to this ruling (I think?).

However previously that was not federal law, however many states had it as state law.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Zyphlin said:
From what I understand from this thread and a bit of research, that is the federal law now due to this ruling (I think?).

However previously that was not federal law, however many states had it as state law.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Let me find the link where I got my information from. I'll be right back. ;)

If I Choose To Remain Silent, Or Request An Attorney, But Later Decided To Answer Questions, Can They Use My Statement?

If the police do try to question you after your arrest, they are supposed to cease interrogation if you exercise your right to remain silent or request an attorney. It should be noted that the request for an attorney is "more powerful" than a request to remain silent. Courts tend to view police claims that a suspect changed his mind about having an attorney with much more suspicion than claims that the suspect changed his mind about remaining silent.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html
Click to expand...

Having read that and quoting the paraphrasing of what Kennedy said (I provided it in an above post of mine), I concluded that if a defendant stated, "I want to remain silent," interrogation must stop. The guy in this case apparently did not state anything--he just stayed silent until he incriminated himself.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Deuce said:
DONT CONFESS THINGS TO THE POLICE. HOW HARD IS THIS?
Click to expand...

This is very very true. You're best off not saying a damned thing and getting a lawyer than talking to the cops.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

the makeout hobo said:
They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.
Click to expand...

What difference does that make? That's not excessive. They were investigating a murder, they had a suspect, they weren't torturing him, and until he tells them "I want an attorney" they are well within their authority to question him. It was a murder, not shoplifting. He confessed...he could have said "I want an attorney." Failing to say "I want an attorney" is in no way an indication that he wants an attorney or to stop the questioning. It simply indicates he's not answering direct questions.

Good for the cops, good for the Supreme Court. They got it right. Miranda is overrated in my opinion.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

the makeout hobo said:
So this man is arrested and read his Miranda rights. He didn't answer any questions deeper than "Is your chair hard" for more than two hours, clearly using his right to remain silent. Then after two hours of grilling, he answers a question. It seems to me that he was clearly trying to invoke his Miranda rights, and gave up after the police refused to stop questioning him. Nowhere in the Miranda rights does it say "You must specifically declare you are using your right to remain silent." This ruling undermines our basic rights.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that the police should be legally required to read Miranda rights seeing how every American should already be aware of their constional rights to remain silent and to have legal representation. Nor should it be grounds for some rat lawyer to try to get a trial overthrown. The police should not be legally required to remind you of your constitutional rights. Churches, news paper stands, tv stations and everyone else are not required to remind you of your first amendment rights, nor are anyone else required to remind you of your second amendment rights when ever you want to buy a firearm(although I do think those in office should be required to read the Constitution before making any laws). So the guy failing to remain silent was his own fault, he could have responded to every question "I plead the 5th" and "I want a lawyer" or simply continued to not say anything as the police kept questioning him.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Ignorance of the law or rights is not a defense. Miranda has been around long enough, been presented on TV shows and the news that, IMO there is no excuse for not knowing you have a right to remain silent and have a lawyer. I support the Courts position.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Ikari said:
This is very very true. You're best off not saying a damned thing and getting a lawyer than talking to the cops.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I tell my clients this all the time. There is NOTHING you can say that can possibly make things better once you're being questioned.

Well, OK, the only thing I can think of would be "I was in Europe all last month and therefore could not have committed the crime, here are my plane tickets and passport and pictures from my trip." In other words, if you have an airtight alibi (and you really ARE not guilty) then that would be OK in my opinion!
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

mike2810 said:
Ignorance of the law or rights is not a defense. Miranda has been around long enough, been presented on TV shows and the news that, IMO there is no excuse for not knowing you have a right to remain silent and have a lawyer. I support the Courts position.
Click to expand...

The problem in this case is that the defendant THOUGHT we WAS exercising his right -- he remained silent and refused to talk. The police refused to accept that and kept questioning him and he eventually broke down.

I mean, if you're questioning someone and they refuse to say a word, isn't it obvious that they want to remain silent? Why do they have to say "I am remaining silent"?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

jamesrage said:
I do not believe that the police should be legally required to read Miranda rights seeing how every American should already be aware of their constional rights to remain silent and to have legal representation. Nor should it be grounds for some rat lawyer to try to get a trial overthrown. The police should not be legally required to remind you of your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Yes they should. It's an exercise not only to remind the People of their rights and abilities, but also to remind the authority that their power is limited. The police should definitely have to read us our rights. Just because most of us may know them doesn't mean that everyone knows them nor does it mean that we can quit informing people when they are arrested by government authority the rights and abilities they have to fight and protect themselves against government force.

jamesrage said:
Churches, news paper stands, tv stations and everyone else are not required to remind you of your first amendment rights, nor are anyone else required to remind you of your second amendment rights when ever you want to buy a firearm(although I do think those in office should be required to read the Constitution before making any laws).
Click to expand...

None of those things are government agents. That's the difference.

jamesrage said:
So the guy failing to remain silent was his own fault, he could have responded to every question "I plead the 5th" and "I want a lawyer" or simply continued to not say anything as the police kept questioning him.
Click to expand...

Could have and should have. He was also read his rights and knew about it. None of what happened in this case would suggest that having police officers stop reading rights is a good idea.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Again, I'm still kind of confused. It's clear, to me, that the guy was invoking his right to be silent while he was silent. Upon speaking, it's obvious he changed his mind about being silent.

I mean, am I to understand that if someone specifically says now, "I invoke my right to remain silent", and THEN confesses to the crime that what he said while he was invoking his 'right to remain silent' can't be held against him?

I just don't get any of this. He spoke. He was TOLD, explicitly, that anything he said could and WOULD be used against him. And he spoke. Cut and dry as far as I'm concerned.

As far as the cops questioning him for hours, well why the hell wouldn't they? He didn't tell them to stop. He didn't ask for a lawyer. Nothing. Why *wouldn't* they continue asking questions? Of COURSE they want him to speak, duh. That's their ****ing job.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

the makeout hobo said:
I would say that they refused him his right to be silent by continuing to question him when he was clearing exercising it.
Click to expand...

He should be held without interrogation until his attorney is present.

This is the worst Court in my lifetime and I'm betting history will put this decision and the Citizens United decision up there with the Slaughterhouse Cases as some of the worst decisions in Court history.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

rivrrat said:
Again, I'm still kind of confused. It's clear, to me, that the guy was invoking his right to be silent while he was silent. Upon speaking, it's obvious he changed his mind about being silent.

I mean, am I to understand that if someone specifically says now, "I invoke my right to remain silent", and THEN confesses to the crime that what he said while he was invoking his 'right to remain silent' can't be held against him?

I just don't get any of this. He spoke. He was TOLD, explicitly, that anything he said could and WOULD be used against him. And he spoke. Cut and dry as far as I'm concerned.

As far as the cops questioning him for hours, well why the hell wouldn't they? He didn't tell them to stop. He didn't ask for a lawyer. Nothing. Why *wouldn't* they continue asking questions? Of COURSE they want him to speak, duh. That's their ****ing job.
Click to expand...

That's the reason we have the Miranda rights. Once one invokes their 5th Amendment rights, the police should stop interrogating him until a lawyer was present.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

FilmFestGuy said:
That's the reason we have the Miranda rights. Once one invokes their 5th Amendment rights, the police should stop interrogating him until a lawyer was present.
Click to expand...

Okay, I have just read part of the decision. What you state above (in bold) is correct; however, in invoking your 5th Amendment right, you must invoke it UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

Held:
1. The state court’s decision rejecting Thompkins’ Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily reason-able under AEDPA’s more deferential standard of review. Pp. 7–17.

(a) Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452,
459. If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent, id., at 461–462. There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring aninterrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambigu-ous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that “avoid difficulties of proof and . . . provide guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458–459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He did neither. Pp. 8–10.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
Click to expand...


I don't see how this is a bad ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

FilmFestGuy said:
That's the reason we have the Miranda rights. Once one invokes their 5th Amendment rights, the police should stop interrogating him until a lawyer was present.
Click to expand...

He didn't ask for a lawyer.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

This man was obviously aware of his miranda rights, but not aware that explicitly asking for a lawyer would have ended the interrogation. Perhaps miranda should be updated to include this information.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Ikari said:
Yes they should. It's an exercise not only to remind the People of their rights and abilities, but also to remind the authority that their power is limited. The police should definitely have to read us our rights. .
Click to expand...

The constitution does not say police to remind you of your rights. The idea that some lawyer can get a case over thrown on the basis that police did not remind you of your rights is laughable. It is the individual's responsibility to exercise their constitutional rights.

Just because most of us may know them doesn't mean that everyone knows them nor does it mean that we can quit informing people when they are arrested by government authority the rights and abilities they have to fight and protect themselves against government force.
Click to expand...

Ignorance of the law and rights is not a defense.


None of those things are government agents. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Irreverent. It is not the government's responsibility to remind you of your rights. At most you could petition the government to make constitutional rights a a very thorough class in school.

Could have and should have. He was also read his rights and knew about it. None of what happened in this case would suggest that having police officers stop reading rights is a good idea
Click to expand...

You have the right to remain silent but nowhere in the 5th amendment does it say police have to shut up and quit asking questions. Do you see "police have to shut up and quit asking questions" anywhere in the 5th amendment?


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

aps said:
Okay, I have just read part of the decision. What you state above (in bold) is correct; however, in invoking your 5th Amendment right, you must invoke it UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

I don't see how this is a bad ruling.
Click to expand...

If it were limited in scope, I would have no problem either. But it's broadness concerns me. The Roberts Court did the same thing with Citizens United in that they made the ruling SOOO broad that it's a complete alteration of the present state of being when it didn't need to be.

Now I could easily see innocent people being badgered or tricked into confessions or things that sound like confessions and incriminating themselves simply because they didn't say the right words.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

FilmFestGuy said:
If it were limited in scope, I would have no problem either. But it's broadness concerns me. The Roberts Court did the same thing with Citizens United in that they made the ruling SOOO broad that it's a complete alteration of the present state of being when it didn't need to be.

Now I could easily see innocent people being badgered or tricked into confessions or things that sound like confessions and incriminating themselves simply because they didn't say the right words.
Click to expand...

How can they be tricked? They're told, explicitly, that anything they say can and will be used against them. If they speak, that's on them. No one forces them to speak.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Groucho said:
The problem in this case is that the defendant THOUGHT we WAS exercising his right -- he remained silent and refused to talk. The police refused to accept that and kept questioning him and he eventually broke down.

I mean, if you're questioning someone and they refuse to say a word, isn't it obvious that they want to remain silent? Why do they have to say "I am remaining silent"?
Click to expand...

Because there needs to be a clear, easily defined, consistant way to measure it. Otherwise you leave it up to police discretion and open up to frivilous law suits as someone claims "Oh, he was silent for [x] amount of time and the cops kept questioning him, its a violation of his rights!".

There's a lot of wiggle room, both on the part of the cops and on the part of people attempting to sue the state, if you want the cops to play mind reader.

There's no wiggle room in regards to stating it, either they state it or not. That's pretty simple.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

rivrrat said:
How can they be tricked? They're told, explicitly, that anything they say can and will be used against them. If they speak, that's on them. No one forces them to speak.
Click to expand...

Essentially, I think the Miranda Rights are going to have to be changed now so that they state. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to remain silent, you must state - upon completion of the reading of these rights - I choose to remain silent.

With the Court saying that you have to explicitly state it; then I think we're going to end up having to have an exact sentence that must be stated.

But my bigger issue is how this could be interpreted by police to keep badgering someone without a lawyer present to simply get what they want.

I know most innocent people don't get arrested; but sometimes they do. Our laws must be made to protect those people. When innocent people DO get arrested, they're easily the most flustered and most likely to say something wrong because they're not used to the system having been innocent and all.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

FilmFestGuy said:
Essentially, I think the Miranda Rights are going to have to be changed now so that they state. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to remain silent, you must state - upon completion of the reading of these rights - I choose to remain silent.

With the Court saying that you have to explicitly state it; then I think we're going to end up having to have an exact sentence that must be stated.

But my bigger issue is how this could be interpreted by police to keep badgering someone without a lawyer present to simply get what they want.

I know most innocent people don't get arrested; but sometimes they do. Our laws must be made to protect those people. When innocent people DO get arrested, they're easily the most flustered and most likely to say something wrong because they're not used to the system having been innocent and all.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that in most states, the LEOs' final question is, "Do you understand these rights?". And then they wait for an acknowledgement.

If the suspect states they understand their rights, then they may or may not decide to answer any further questions. Fair enough. But at some point we have to draw a line for how far we are going to encumber of police from doing their basic job. There needs to balance on both sides of the justice equation.....


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom