• 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

Why do people keep on talking about lawyers? That is a different right that has nothing to do with this. A suspect has a right to an attorney. A suspect has a right to remain silent. These are two completely separate rights and you can invoke one without the other. For whatever reason this suspect chose not to ask for a lawyer. That is his choice. It has no bearing, however, on whether he may choose to remain silent or not.

As to the case itself... He went two entire hours without answering questions, that clearly to me seems to be that he decided to remain silent. Nowhere in the Miranda rights does it say you have to officially say you're keeping silent. If you don't talk for that long a period, it should be obvious. The police were coercing this man, plain and simple. I don't see how you could take hours worth of silence as anything other than invocation of that right.

I'm just not sympathetic here. He was able to go 2 hours without answering questions. But then he chose to answer a question. Miranda says that you have the right to remain silent and that anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. So the guy remained silent for two hours and then said something that was used against him. What's the issue here?

I have to admit that I haven't read the facts of the case. I'll read them soon and see if my mind is changed, but right now, I am with the majority of the Supreme Court.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

First point: I don't feel bad for the guy at all. He is almost 100 % certainly guilty. The issue to me is not whether justice is served in his particular case, but whether the ruling itself is right. Short answer...I am torn, I can see both sides. You are told anything you say can be used against you, but as the little of the dissent mentioned in the article says, having to speak to say you wish to remain silent is counter intuitive.
And I, like the Supreme Court, have to say that the whole premise that "OMFG He has to say something in order to inform the detectives whether or not he wants to waive or invoke his rights! That violates his right to remain silent!" is rather ridiculous. The reason is simple. Informing the detectives that he does not want to talk to them is NOT being a witness against himself. Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "You have the right to remain silent." The right to remain silent only applies to questioning the suspect/defendant on the matter that they are being arrested for.
Just like the courts have acknowledge that the right to remain silent does not apply to standard booking questions (ie name, dob, address, phone number, place of birth, height, weight, eye color, race, etc).

I'm with Redress on this one. He certainly appears to be guilty, but I don't like the standard that this may set. First of all, I could potentially see more "trickery" being used if one is allowed to grill a suspect for hours on end. I don't say this to defend guilty criminals, but to protect the less intelligent innocent suspects. I feel that if even one innocent person is wrongly convicted because of this change that it will be a great blow to our personal liberty.

This has nothing to do with allowing police to grill a suspect for hours. It has everything to do with police being able to ask questions unless the individual informs the investigators that he does not wish to speak with them, or that he wishes to have an attorney present during questioning. It is already standard practice to ASK someone whether or not they wish to answer questions, or whether they wish to have an attorney present during questioning. Remaining silent is not an answer to the question. Being required to answer the question is NOT violating the 5th amendment.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.
He didn't let them know one way or the other. If you specifically say Im not talking to you or Im not talking to you unless I have a lawyer present, then the police are required to move on to their next action.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I'm just not sympathetic here. He was able to go 2 hours without answering questions. But then he chose to answer a question. Miranda says that you have the right to remain silent and that anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. So the guy remained silent for two hours and then said something that was used against him. What's the issue here?

I have to admit that I haven't read the facts of the case. I'll read them soon and see if my mind is changed, but right now, I am with the majority of the Supreme Court.

From what I could tell, the cops just weren't ceasing the questioning. 2 hours, 10 hours, how long was it going to go? The cops just would not stop questioning him, and wasn't taking his silence as an acceptable answer. I think it bordered on coercion.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

If the case were about the right to an attorney, you would be correct. But it's about the right to be "silent". Before this case there were two different standards for invoking each of those rights. A suspect in custody had to specifically ask for an attorney, and then questioning would cease. But in order to invoke silence, all he had to do is stay....silent. Makes sense, right?

Now the Majority in this case has raised the standard for invoking silence. The right still exists, it hasn't been weakened, but now you have to ask for it.
There is no "right to remain silent" in the constitution. This "right to remain silent" is a creation of the Supreme Court. Guess who just made a ruling to clairfy a problem with their own self created "right"? Yes, the supreme court.
Sotomayor's position is weak, as it places the burden not on the constitution, but on the Supreme Court's own ruling, and the dictionary definition on the word "silent".
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

He didn't let them know one way or the other. If you specifically say Im not talking to you or Im not talking to you unless I have a lawyer present, then the police are required to move on to their next action.

The Miranda rights never say you must specifically declare you're using your rights. One would think that two hours of silence has made that clear enough.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

There is no "right to remain silent" in the constitution. This "right to remain silent" is a creation of the Supreme Court. Guess who just made a ruling to clairfy a problem with their own self created "right"? Yes, the supreme court.
Sotomayor's position is weak, as it places the burden not on the constitution, but on the Supreme Court's own ruling, and the dictionary definition on the word "silent".

Now I will not insult you by claiming that you've never actually read the constitution, but somehow in your reading you seem to have missed the fifth amendment which claims "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."

We usually say right to remain silent, since "right to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself" doesn't roll off the tongue as well
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Read down through the thread which conveniently ended up with your post. Personally struggling to figure out where exactly there are any grounds for outrage/concern here. The obligation of the police is to read the Miranda rights (before any statements by the perp can be used in court against him). As long as the rights were appropriately administered the police have fulfilled their obligation.

Never heard of any legal constraint placed on LEOs that they need to be silent....



.

Exactly. Unless the individual specifically invokes their rights under the constitution, anything they say in response to a question until that time is usable against them. And, if they answer questions and then decide they want to invoke, anything they said prior can be used against them.

Not to mention, that if someone starts talking before they have been read miranda, and not in response to a question, then that can also be used as it is a "spontaneous utterance".
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Is that written somewhere? Never really thought about it before. After a suspect has been read his Miranda rights he certainly isn't required to respond to a question. But is there some legal dictate that the cops have to stop talking to him? Be curious to see how that is stated in the law.....



.

The Supreme Court has ruled on it that if someone requests an attorney present as per the 6th Amendment, then police are not permitted to ask any questions until the subject is provided with legal counsel. If they continue after the individual has requested legal counsel and the individual answers a question, then that information is not permissible because the individual has had their 6th amendment right violated.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Exactly. Unless the individual specifically invokes their rights under the constitution, anything they say in response to a question until that time is usable against them. And, if they answer questions and then decide they want to invoke, anything they said prior can be used against them.

Not to mention, that if someone starts talking before they have been read miranda, and not in response to a question, then that can also be used as it is a "spontaneous utterance".

Before this ruling, that was never clearly the case. If I'm using my freedom of speech, do I have to say "This is my freedom of speech" before saying it? That's never been the case for any other right.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

The Miranda rights never say you must specifically declare you're using your rights. One would think that two hours of silence has made that clear enough.
If there is a "specific" YOU MUST SAY THIS miranda warning, then I would agree with you.
But there isnt.

When I mirandize folks, I inform them that they can stop answering questions or ask for a lawyer at any time. That isn't a requirement of the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda.
I also ask them at the end of the miranda warning, "Do you want to answer questions at this time without an attorney present?"

The only things that are required by Miranda are that you inform them that they don't have to answer questions as anything they say may be used against them in court, and they have the right to have legal counsel present during questioning.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Before this ruling, that was never clearly the case. If I'm using my freedom of speech, do I have to say "This is my freedom of speech" before saying it? That's never been the case for any other right.
Actually, it says you don't have to answer questions.

It has never stated that I can't ask them up until the point that you request counsel present.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

If there is a "specific" YOU MUST SAY THIS miranda warning, then I would agree with you.
But there isnt.

When I mirandize folks, I inform them that they can stop answering questions or ask for a lawyer at any time. That isn't a requirement of the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda.
I also ask them at the end of the miranda warning, "Do you want to answer questions at this time without an attorney present?"

The only things that are required by Miranda are that you inform them that they don't have to answer questions as anything they say may be used against them in court, and they have the right to have legal counsel present during questioning.

Do you think that the fact that this suspect went hours without speaking was a clear indicator he was invoking his right to be silent?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Actually, it says you don't have to answer questions.

It has never stated that I can't ask them up until the point that you request counsel present.

I may be wrong, but it seems like what the cops did hear borders on coercion.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Now I will not insult you by claiming that you've never actually read the constitution, but somehow in your reading you seem to have missed the fifth amendment which claims "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."

We usually say right to remain silent, since "right to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself" doesn't roll off the tongue as well
Exactly. Now if you read the majority opinion in this matter, and the reasons why the majority decided the way they did, you would have answered your own point.

Remaining "silent" in the way that Sotomayor, and apparently You are viewing it, and "being compelled to be a witness against yourself" are two different things.

Answering a question as to whether or not you wish to answer questions as part of a criminal investigation is NOT being compelled to be a witness against yourself.
As your answer to this question is NOT being used as evidence against you, and thus it is not in violation of the 5th amendment.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

From what I could tell, the cops just weren't ceasing the questioning. 2 hours, 10 hours, how long was it going to go? The cops just would not stop questioning him, and wasn't taking his silence as an acceptable answer. I think it bordered on coercion.

I don't believe that the cops MUST stop asking questions just because someone has invoked his right to remain silent. I believe, as Caine has pointed out, the cops must stop asking questions once the suspect asks for a lawyer.

Okay, I just looked up some things. The cops must stop asking questions when a person says they want to remain silent. According to an article about this case, the guy did not explicitly state he wanted to remain silent. I can see how his not saying anything would cause one to think he was invoking his right to remain silent, but he never stated such explicitly.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Thompkins could have ended the questioning by telling the police he wanted to invoke his right to remain silent.



http://detnews.com/article/20100601...Miranda-rights--keeps-Mich.-convict-in-prison
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Exactly. Now if you read the majority opinion in this matter, and the reasons why the majority decided the way they did, you would have answered your own point.

Remaining "silent" in the way that Sotomayor, and apparently You are viewing it, and "being compelled to be a witness against yourself" are two different things.

Answering a question as to whether or not you wish to answer questions as part of a criminal investigation is NOT being compelled to be a witness against yourself.
As your answer to this question is NOT being used as evidence against you, and thus it is not in violation of the 5th amendment.

Except he was never asked whether or not he was invoking his right to remain silent. You're bringing up something that never happened.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Do you think that the fact that this suspect went hours without speaking was a clear indicator he was invoking his right to be silent?

At no time, until now, was there a requirement for questions to stop being asked on the federal level unless counsel was requested. Some states have clarified this FOR THEIR STATE however.

Police are not mind readers. It could have been a clear indicator that the defendant didn't wish to answer those specific questions that he remained silent for.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

At no time, until now, was there a requirement for questions to stop being asked on the federal level unless counsel was requested. Some states have clarified this FOR THEIR STATE however.

Police are not mind readers. It could have been a clear indicator that the defendant didn't wish to answer those specific questions that he remained silent for.

It seems to me that he was not told he was specifically required to declare this right. Suspects aren't mind readers either.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Except he was never asked whether or not he was invoking his right to remain silent. You're bringing up something that never happened.

And there was not a requirement to do so, until now.
There was also never a requirement to stop asking questions just because someone is starring at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

It seems to me that he was not told he was specifically required to declare this right. Suspects aren't mind readers either.

I haven't a copy of the transcript from the interview room, or a description of the manner in which these Homicide detectives read him his rights. Do you?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

And there was not a requirement to do so, until now.
There was also never a requirement to stop asking questions just because someone is starring at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead.

So they could have questioned him for 12 hours straight without him saying a word, and you don't see a problem with this?

If there was no requirement for him to declare his right, and he was ina situation where it was obvious that was what was going on, then the police violated his rights by continuing to question him.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

So they could have questioned him for 12 hours straight without him saying a word, and you don't see a problem with this?
Oh no, I definately see a problem with that. However, we aren't here to change the constitution based upon how we feel.

A non-verbal action is not an answer to a question. Requesting that someone inform you they wish to remain silent and not answer any questions is not making them speak in violation of the 5th amendment.

If there was no requirement for him to declare his right, and he was ina situation where it was obvious that was what was going on, then the police violated his rights by continuing to question him.
.[/quote] Not according to those guys who get paid the big bucks to interpret the constitution.

Was it obvious what was going on? Maybe he didn't want to answer the specific questions he was asked until the one question that he did answer came up.
You are allowed to refuse to answer certain questions and answer others as you wish.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

You have the right to REMAIN silent.

You do not have the right to not be questioned.

If you want out of interrogation and don’t want to say anything, request a lawyer. If they have nothing to hold you on they should be able to get you out.

I disagree 100% with this ruling however. You should not have to STATE that you’re invoking your right to remain silent, that’s asinine and stupid. You assert your right to remain silent by remaining silent. Once you begin to talk and answer questions then you temporary relinquish that right and anything you say can and will be used against you. After you speak if you want to return to REMAINING silent you’re free to.

But NOTHING in the constitution nor in Miranda states “You have the right to not be questioned”. 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.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.

I think that interrogation techniques are a separate issue from Miranda. We probably need to address the issue of interrogation separately. We cannot have Miranda that widely interpreted. This ruling just clears up a nuance to the Miranda law that had not been tested. It didn't take anything away from Miranda, it just didn't allow his to be added as a provision of Miranda.
 
Back
Top Bottom