Another step back from Justice for all??

[Col Hogan]

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.

Once again...doesn't three hours of silence indicate he has assumed his right to remain silent...

But then answering two questions indicate he forfeited it....

WHat do you want...a Miranda card for suspects like the cops carry...telling them the exact words to say?

[GannonFan]

I don't see the problem with this ruling. Before this cops could question you just as much as they do now. There are restrictions in place for sleep deprivation and food and water depravation so it's not as if this overrides those. It basically says, though, that cops can question you until you say that you are invoking your right to be silent. Of course, you can also invoke this right by, oh I don't know, actually being silent. Don't want to confess to something? Just don't speak. How hard is that? You had to ask for an attorney before if you wanted questioning to wait until then - this is even less strenous since you can exercise your right without even having to say a word. I read the dissenting opinions and I just don't see the real concern. Good to see Kagan's read on this.

[tribe_pride]

If you say the right to remain silent means that someone automatically does not have to say anything. Where is the line drawn? 2 minutes of saying nothing? 3? 3 hours?

Also, if this right was interpreted that way, wouldn't you have the same thing with an attorney which would mean that nobody arrested could be interrogated without an attorney?

[Skjellyfetti]

Of course, you can also invoke this right by, oh I don't know, actually being silent. Don't want to confess to something? Just don't speak. How hard is that? You had to ask for an attorney before if you wanted questioning to wait until then - this is even less strenous since you can exercise your right without even having to say a word.

No. Silence is not sufficient according to the ruling. They can continue to interrogate you and try to get you speak up. You have to "invoke your right" and all interrogation stops or is inadmissible afterwards. Your silence should be good enough. You should not have to ask for your right. It should be assumed....

[Skjellyfetti]

If you say the right to remain silent means that someone automatically does not have to say anything. Where is the line drawn? 2 minutes of saying nothing? 3? 3 hours?

Also, if this right was interpreted that way, wouldn't you have the same thing with an attorney which would mean that nobody arrested could be interrogated without an attorney?

As I said earlier in the thread... in my mind it should be assumed the suspects are invoking their rights unless they explicitly forfeit them. The suspect should be allowed to have a lawyer present and the cops should wait to interrogate him until he has a lawyer present unless he explicitly states "I don't want a lawyer present. I'll talk" or something similar. Same thing with speaking up. The suspect shouldn't be assumed to have waived his right to be silent. It should be assumed he has that right from the get-go unless he speaks up and declines that right.

[GannonFan]

If you say the right to remain silent means that someone automatically does not have to say anything. Where is the line drawn? 2 minutes of saying nothing? 3? 3 hours?

Also, if this right was interpreted that way, wouldn't you have the same thing with an attorney which would mean that nobody arrested could be interrogated without an attorney?

As I said earlier in the thread... in my mind it should be assumed the suspects are invoking their rights unless they explicitly forfeit them. The suspect should be allowed to have a lawyer present and the cops should wait to interrogate him until he has a lawyer present unless he explicitly states "I don't want a lawyer present. I'll talk" or something similar. Same thing with speaking up. The suspect shouldn't be assumed to have waived his right to be silent. It should be assumed he has that right from the get-go unless he speaks up and declines that right.

But under your criteria then, questioning of suspects can only be done if the suspect actually says "I'm willing to be questioned". Heck, under your guidelines you would wonder if we would ever get anybody to say anything. The cops would just be sitting there waiting for the guy to say that they can start questioning him.

They still have to acknowledge that they understand their rights as they are read to them so if they accede that they understand their rights, IMO, it's ballgame from there.

[JMU DJ]

I think everyone inherently knows they have the right to silence, this guy in the story gave up that right after 3 hours. What I think this ruling does is it allows the criminal to say: "I'm not speaking to you, I am invoking my right to silence." This would then end the interrogation, correct? The cops couldn't sit there and badger you anymore, right? I feel like this helps the criminal more than it hurts them... besides, is everyone to inept to ask for counsel guaranteed by the 6th amendment? Don't speak to the police about charges, what could happen to you if you are found guilty, etc. Just repeat these simple words everyone should learn, they're not that hard to remember:

"I am invoking my right to remain silent, I would like to see a lawyer"


If that's to difficult, most people already know this one from watching all the cop shows:

"I would like to see a lawyer" followed by your silence.

From the perspective of a Criminal defense lawyer:
[youtube][/youtube]

From the perspective of a Police Officer:
[youtube][/youtube]

[CID1990]

This is a prime example of when you give an inch, you will forevermore be required to supply a mile.

I have been a long time student of Miranda vs. Arizona, and there has been endless debate over the years. There have also been numerous modifying opinions by the high court on Miranda, and every time there is squealing form one side or another.

The bottom line is that Miranda was originally decided for the explicit purpose that SK mentioned... not all people are smart enough to know that they are not required to talk to the police when they are suspected of a crime. That's fine and dandy. In fact, I tend to agree with the original precepts of the MIranda case. There are some stupid people out there, to be sure. Particularly liberal college students who have had one too many beers. They just can't stop running their mouths. I can recall telling a guy once, "You really don't have to talk to me, Bubba. In fact, maybe you should just shut up." Of course he kept talking.

That being said, this recent decision is not something to get one's panties in a wad over. All it means is that the police can continue to question a suspect until he or she invokes their right to remain silent. Suspects do this all the time, anyway. The dumbest retard I ever arrested at least knew that he should ask for his attorney and not talk to me. In fact, 99.9% of all invocations under Miranda occur when the suspect makes an affirmative action to either request an attorney before talking, or to simply say that he isn't talking and then clams up.

There are plenty of more vulnerable windmills to chase, IMO. This decision, in spite of what liberal pundits might say, really changes nothing in terms of how Miranda operates or affects police interrogations. Nobody ever was convicted (after Miranda v AZ) by not saying anything at all. The police can ask all the questions they want. it is the answers that bury you, and if you don't answer, well.....

[ASUMountaineer]

I can see both sides of this case. I tend to agree more with Jelly on this issue, but I don't think it's necessarily as bad as he stated. I'm not against the police, I'm also not supporting criminals. I think the job police do is a very hard job, and I respect them for what they do and the fact that they do it knowing their life could be in jeopardy. However, there are some innocent people that do stupid things causing them a possible conviction. There are two big questions I see with this: 1) do you really have to invoke a right (or should you have to), and 2) how long is too long to interrogate or to remain silent before the "right to remain silent" is considered "invoked," if at all?

I think the "right to remain silent" is a right, but police still need to be able to try an uncover information they believe a suspect may be holding. So, I understand why they would require a suspect to "invoke" his right. But, police must be able to interrogate. It's a fine line, and I'm not sure what the answer is, but this may be a little far. "Reaonsable" is a common standard throughout law, perhaps determining time to "invoke" the right of silence should be by such a standard as well.