New U.S. Supreme Court decision: Miranda Rights

[HYHYBT]

Basically, they don't have to tell you of them anymore. Seems like a good topic, that's all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suprem...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Sounds to me like they do still need to inform you of them, and basically everything else about Miranda remains the same. The only difference is that, as with any suspect's right to an attorney, the right to remain silent must also be invoked by the suspect. It actually makes sense to me if only because, comparatively speaking, having to throw out everything a suspect says of their own volition because they did not yet expressly wave the right to remain silent always baffled me. I mean, that person decided to provide that information, how is this not automatically waiving the right to remain silent. It's not as if the right doesn't exist anymore either, you can invoke it whenever you want and that basically means that they have to back off.

[Greenday]

Just sounds like you have to say you wish to use the right to remain silent. Not a big deal in my opinion. Not like anyone lost any human rights.

[Red Panda]

They still have to tell you your rights and you have to tell them if you are waiving the right to remain silent. If anything this makes everything clearer and benefits both sides. If the person in the example stated his intention he would have been better off.

[jackfaire]

So we are going to use the interrogation rooms for day care rooms now? Or maybe vending machines or hmmm what else?

Personally I don't think there was any ambiguity. You have the right to remain silent so shut the hell up if you speak it will be used against you.

So uhm yeah that is pretty clear. If I say, "Yeah I did it" Then I broke my silence and gave them information.

The right to remains silent means I can't be charged with being silent. I can't be given any fines or charges for refusing to answer the cops questions.

It never meant to me they had to stop asking questions.

But if I can now invoke a magical right that my saying I invoke my right to silence and then nothing I use after that can be used it's ridiculous.

Does this mean I can tell the cops that I did it completely confess and then say that since I invoked my right of silence they have to pretend they never heard it?

I feel this ruling makes the right to silence ambiguous. Now you have to wonder can I use what they said or no. If they slip up and say something now can it be used at all? Is there any reason to even interrogate anyone if you can't use anything they say?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

No, it means that until you do everything you say is admissible. This is as opposed to nothing you say being admissible until you expressly waive your right to remain silent.

[jackfaire]

No, it means that until you do everything you say is admissible. This is as opposed to nothing you say being admissible until you expressly waive your right to remain silent.

I am confused your saying that anything they said before wasn't admissiable in a court of law until they waived their right to silence?

I thought speaking automatically waived that right.

Can you imagine if you had to declare every right?

"I am invoking my right to pursue happiness"

[Boozy]

I thought speaking automatically waived that right.

That's what I can't get over.

Can speaking not be presumed to be a waiver of your right to remain silent? Has the law completely lost it's mind?

[lordlundar]

You're missing the next part:

Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

This doesn't mean that you have to be a mute. You can say "I'm a happy little frou-frou" and be fine because it's not relevant to the case. But you say something that can incriminate yourself, and you're done for.

It's essentially what happened that caused this ruling. This guy opened his mouth and confessed to the crime after he was arrested and his rights were read to him and understood, and then tried to get it stricken, claiming that he didn't actively waive his rights.

The judge disagreed, allowed the confession into evidence, and the supreme court later decided for future cases that the suspect must actively declare their right to remain silent.

I personally disagree with Sotomayor in that it "turns Miranda upside down." Miranda rights are read and must be understood by the suspect at the time of arrest. Failure to do so means the suspect can go free. All this does is ensure a cut off point for the police that isn't open to interpretation.

[KnitShoni]

I don't see how invoking your "right to remain silent" should negate the fact that "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law." If you have your rights read to you, say you understand them, invoke your right to silence, then decide NOT to remain silent, why is what you say no longer admissible? I was under the impression the right to remain silent means the police can't force you to confess. If you choose to do so, why should that not be considered admissible evidence?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It basically acts as a flag to say "I'm not going to say anything" i.e. a statement of intention. Once that intention is made clear, it's a waste of time in not illegal for the cops to sweat you for no reason.

[lordlundar]

I don't see how invoking your "right to remain silent" should negate the fact that "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law."

It doesn't. The only time where the former negates the latter is if the police reject you invoking it (ie still questioning you after you request a lawyer or openly saying you refuse to answer the questions)

If you have your rights read to you, say you understand them, invoke your right to silence, then decide NOT to remain silent, why is what you say no longer admissible?

It still is admissible actually. Actively invoking the right means the officer has to stop questioning you, regardless of the request for a lawyer has been made. If however you scream at the top of your lungs afterward that you committed the crime, well...

The "right to remain silent" is poorly worded and in some cases, not the wording used. A better choice should be "you have the right to refuse to answer any questions asked of you by law enforcement", which is a much clearer response.

[insertNameHere]

I HIGHLY recommend this video called never talk to the police!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2514885833865#

it is 27minutes but worth it, he gives you reasons not to talk to the police because it can actually only hurt you.

[Greenday]

I HIGHLY recommend this video called never talk to the police!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2514885833865#

it is 27minutes but worth it, he gives you reasons not to talk to the police because it can actually only hurt you.

I've seen that video before. He makes a lot of valid points in it.

[jackfaire]

Isn't that redundant then I was under the impression they had to stop questioning you when you ask for a lawyer?