Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate1-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Criminal suspects must explicitly invoke their right to remain silent to force police to stop questioning, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled.
The 5-4 decision upholds the Michigan murder conviction of a man who sat silent throughout most of a three-hour interrogation by police. The ruling blunts the force of the landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision, which required police to inform suspects of their rights.

Ugh. That truly sucks.

This is a seminar by a Police officer and Lawyer saying you shouldn't talk

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thompkins was sentenced to life in prison and appealed on several grounds, arguing that prosecutors shouldn’t have been permitted to use the statements he made to police during questioning.

The Supreme Court in 1994 ruled that the suspects must be unambiguous when they invoke their right to an attorney. The majority today said the latest ruling was a logical next step.

Can one of you explain this part to me? Maybe I'm a rube, but I don't get what the author is saying.

Lets see...

The guy is arrested...read his Miranda Rights, which includes the now famous statement "ANYTHING you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."

He says nothing...for over three hours...then answers two questions...which were successfully used against him...

jelly...what is truly disgusting is you think convicting a murderer with his own words is disgusting...

SMFH...libs would rather protect criminals...

bobbythekidd wrote:

Thompkins was sentenced to life in prison and appealed on several grounds, arguing that prosecutors shouldn’t have been permitted to use the statements he made to police during questioning.

The Supreme Court in 1994 ruled that the suspects must be unambiguous when they invoke their right to an attorney. The majority today said the latest ruling was a logical next step.

Can one of you explain this part to me? Maybe I'm a rube, but I don't get what the author is saying.

Well, one of our resident lawyers will be able to explain much better... but, I'll give it a shot...

The Supreme Court ruled you must actually state "I'd like to speak to an attorney" or "I'd like to invoke my right to speak to an attorney" in 1994. If you invoke your right to an attorney the police can't question you without your attorney, or if they do... it can't be used in court. With the latest ruling it also applies to your right to remain silent. Police can question you for hours upon hours and anything is admissible. You must explicitly invoke your right to remain silent. So, I'd assume stating "I ain't talkin, piggy" or "I'd like to invoke my right to remain silent, please."

In the case of Thompkins he was interrogated for 3 hours while remaining silent... not answering any questions. After three hours a cop asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for the shooting he was accused of and he said "yes." He was convicted of life in prison for that "confession."

Basically, cops will be able to use more invasive interrogation techniques. And, in my spineless, liberal view... it puts the poor and uneducated at a disadvantage.

Col Hogan wrote:
SMFH...libs would rather protect criminals...

They aren't criminals until they're convicted. They're supposed to be PRESUMED innocent until PROVEN guilty. They have the same rights as the rest of us until they're convicted.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
SMFH...libs would rather protect criminals...

They aren't criminals until they're convicted. They're supposed to be PRESUMED innocent until PROVEN guilty. They have the same rights as the rest of us until they're convicted.

They have the right to remain silent...he did a great job for over three hours...then he, for some reason, answered two questions...

So sorry...sucks to be him...

Col Hogan wrote:
They have the right to remain silent...he did a great job for over three hours...then he, for some reason, answered two questions...

So sorry...sucks to be him...

His "right to remain silent"? Now you must speak up and implicitly state you're invoking you're right to remain silent. Not much of a right. His 3 hours of silence should have been sufficient.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
They have the right to remain silent...he did a great job for over three hours...then he, for some reason, answered two questions...

So sorry...sucks to be him...

You no longer have a right to remain silent. You must speak up and implicitly state you're invoking you're right to remain silent.

And how is this wrong???

I'm good with that...

Col Hogan wrote:
And how is this wrong???

I'm good with that...

Of course you are. And I'm fine with it in regards to me. I'm now informed of the Supreme Court ruling and can handle myself properly and invoke every right I'm allowed when I encounter the cops.

But, don't you believe a poor, uneducated person is at a disadvantage when dealing with the cops because they aren't aware of technicalities like... you have a right to remain silent... but, you have to tell us you want to remain silent.

I would probably be ok with it if Miranda rights they read to people they're placing under arrests inform them that they must explicitly state they're invoking their right to remain silent or to explicitly ask for an attorney to be present.

Skjellyfetti wrote:...it puts the poor and uneducated at a disadvantage.

I think this is gonna be the biggest effect of all.

Supreme Court with some interesting rulings lately concerning justice...first the sexual offenders can be held indefinitely ruling, and now this...hmmm...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
And how is this wrong???

I'm good with that...

Of course you are. And I'm fine with it in regards to me. I'm now informed of the Supreme Court ruling and can handle myself properly and invoke every right I'm allowed when I encounter the cops.

But, don't you believe a poor, uneducated person is at a disadvantage when dealing with the cops because they aren't aware of technicalities like... you have a right to remain silent... but, you have to tell us you want to remain silent.

I would probably be ok with it if Miranda rights they read to people they're placing under arrests inform them that they must explicitly state they're invoking their right to remain silent or to explicitly ask for an attorney to be present.

OK, get the Obama administration to spend some of that free money they have and educate the "poor, uneducated" people of this country...

Feelings....nothing more than feelings...


What about someone who is rich, but uneducated...should they get special treatment...

What about the poor but educated people...

Aren't you being a little elitist....I want everyone to be treated the same...

Skjellyfetti wrote:Well, one of our resident lawyers will be able to explain much better... but, I'll give it a shot...

I know you are trying to help so don't think I am picking your post apart. I am just trying to understand.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The Supreme Court ruled you must actually state "I'd like to speak to an attorney" or "I'd like to invoke my right to speak to an attorney" in 1994. If you invoke your right to an attorney the police can't question you without your attorney, or if they do... it can't be used in court.

With the latest ruling it also applies to your right to remain silent. Police can question you for hours upon hours and anything is admissible.

OK. I got that. That has always been been my understanding.

Skjellyfetti wrote:You must explicitly invoke your right to remain silent. So, I'd assume stating "I ain't talkin, piggy" or "I'd like to invoke my right to remain silent, please."

That means what? Is that like when the 30's gangsters would say, "I ain't talking copper!" That's invoking it? Or is not talking, invoking it? I ask because my friends dad beat a DUI by not talking. I mean he never said a word. He did everything they asked him to do like blow into the tube, sit where they asked, sign his name, but never said he drank/ was drunk/ was impared/agreed or disagreed. They had a lack of evidence against him for whatever reason. (I don't know the particulars)

Skjellyfetti wrote:In the case of Thompkins he was interrogated for 3 hours while remaining silent... not answering any questions. After three hours a cop asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for the shooting he was accused of and he said "yes." He was convicted of life in prison for that "confession."

That's a confession in my book. He said that he needed God's forgiveness for a crime he committed and did not stop the questioning.
Basically, cops will be able to use more invasive interrogation techniques. And, in my spineless, liberal view... it puts the poor and uneducated at a disadvantage.[/quote]

Col Hogan wrote:
Aren't you being a little elitist....I want everyone to be treated the same...

First, this makes no sense. If I were elitist I'd want special treatment... not equal treatment, correct? What I'm arguing for is the OPPOSITE of elitism.

And, I don't want everyone to be "treated the same".... these are fundamental rights... I believe in equal rights.

You shouldn't have to explicitly invoke your right. It should be assumed.

In my opinion when cops arrest someone they shouldn't be able to question them without a lawyer or without the the suspect explicitly FORFEITING their right........ but, I guess that means I love criminals.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Aren't you being a little elitist....I want everyone to be treated the same...

First, this makes no sense. If I were elitist I'd want special treatment... not equal treatment, correct? What I'm arguing for is the OPPOSITE of elitism.

And, I don't want everyone to be "treated the same".... these are fundamental rights... I believe in equal rights.

You shouldn't have to explicitly invoke your right. It should be assumed.

In my opinion when cops arrest someone they shouldn't be able to question them without a lawyer or without the the suspect explicitly FORFEITING their right........ but, I guess that means I love criminals.

Finally, we agree on something...

bobbythekidd wrote: That means what? Is that like when the 30's gangsters would say, "I ain't talking copper!" That's invoking it? Or is not talking, invoking it?

Not talking isn't invoking it according to the ruling (if I understand it correctly). The dude's lawyers were arguing that his silence meant he was invoking his right to be silent and the cops shouldn't have questioned him for 3 hours.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote: That means what? Is that like when the 30's gangsters would say, "I ain't talking copper!" That's invoking it? Or is not talking, invoking it?

Not talking isn't invoking it according to the ruling (if I understand it correctly). The dude's lawyers were arguing that his silence meant he was invoking his right to be silent and the cops shouldn't have questioned him for 3 hours.

But he spoke...after being told that anything he said could be used against him...if he had continued keeping his mouth shut, we would not be discussing this...

Where is the issue???

Col Hogan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Not talking isn't invoking it according to the ruling (if I understand it correctly). The dude's lawyers were arguing that his silence meant he was invoking his right to be silent and the cops shouldn't have questioned him for 3 hours.

But he spoke...after being told that anything he said could be used against him...if he had continued keeping his mouth shut, we would not be discussing this...

Where is the issue???

After 3 hours of silence........

Before Miranda a suspect could be interrogated for days.......... Now, it appears that could be the case again unless the suspect invokes his right.

Again, I'd be ok with it if the suspect is informed that if he chooses to remain silent he should say so and the interrogation will cease.

But, the cops shouldn't be able to interrogate someone for an indefinite period of time simply because they don't "explicitly invoke" their right.

It should be assumed the suspect will be silent unless he EXPLICITLY FORFEITS that right.

You shouldn't have to ASK for a right. Especially a right to be silent.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote: That means what? Is that like when the 30's gangsters would say, "I ain't talking copper!" That's invoking it? Or is not talking, invoking it?

Not talking isn't invoking it according to the ruling (if I understand it correctly). The dude's lawyers were arguing that his silence meant he was invoking his right to be silent and the cops shouldn't have questioned him for 3 hours.

My understanding has always been that "marathon" questioning is a standard practice. Both to see if the suspect changes his story over time as he gets tired, and if he will "break" and confess in order to have a drink of water/smoke/or sleep. The cops make him give in to a physical need for relief, in exchange for his desire to escape punishment.

Skjellyfetti wrote:You shouldn't have to ASK for a right.

Agreed! A right is a given.

This is where I don't understand the ruling, or the author. He had the right. He exercised the right for more than three hours. Then for whatever reason he decided to forfeit that right and confessed.

bobbythekidd wrote: My understanding has always been that "marathon" questioning is a standard practice. Both to see if the suspect changes his story over time as he gets tired, and if he will "break" and confess in order to have a drink of water/smoke/or sleep. The cops make him give in to a physical need for relief, in exchange for his desire to escape punishment.

Need a lawyer to weigh in........

But, I believe withholding water and sleep should be fucking illegal if it isn't already. I think the Miranda ruling made "marathon questioning" like that illegal. But, my fear is that this ruling will bring it back.

A confession of a sleep deprived, thirsty individual should not fucking be admissible and no way should cops in a free country be able to do that.

Col Hogan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Of course you are. And I'm fine with it in regards to me. I'm now informed of the Supreme Court ruling and can handle myself properly and invoke every right I'm allowed when I encounter the cops.

But, don't you believe a poor, uneducated person is at a disadvantage when dealing with the cops because they aren't aware of technicalities like... you have a right to remain silent... but, you have to tell us you want to remain silent.

I would probably be ok with it if Miranda rights they read to people they're placing under arrests inform them that they must explicitly state they're invoking their right to remain silent or to explicitly ask for an attorney to be present.

OK, get the Obama administration to spend some of that free money they have and educate the "poor, uneducated" people of this country...

Now, colonel, you know darn good and well that he already gave it all to Wall Street and GM.

Couple interesting sidenotes:
1. Sotomayer wrote the dissenting opinion.
2. Kagan, as Solicitor General, wrote an opinion siding with the police -
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... be_silent/

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."

"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
But he spoke...after being told that anything he said could be used against him...if he had continued keeping his mouth shut, we would not be discussing this...

Where is the issue???

After 3 hours of silence........

Before Miranda a suspect could be interrogated for days.......... Now, it appears that could be the case again unless the suspect invokes his right.

Again, I'd be ok with it if the suspect is informed that if he chooses to remain silent he should say so and the interrogation will cease.

But, the cops shouldn't be able to interrogate someone for an indefinite period of time simply because they don't "explicitly invoke" their right.

It should be assumed the suspect will be silent unless he EXPLICITLY FORFEITS that right.

You shouldn't have to ASK for a right. Especially a right to be silent.

Yes, you have the RIGHT to remain silent. But that doesn't mean that the cops have to be silent as well.
Besides, how tough is it to say "I'm invoking my right to remain silent"?