High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit

[ETR3(SS)]

WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.
You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
While I am not a fan of Sotomayor, I think she is right with this comment. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter intuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so." Miranda rights, they're not broke, don't try to "fix" them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_miranda

[August]

WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.

Cops can't force a person to talk if they decide to remain silent.

[Sailor Steve]

All of the suspect's rights laws predate Miranda. The Miranda ruling merely states that the arresting officers must inform the suspect of those rights.

Since I don't follow these things closely, I was unaware of Berghuis v. Thompkins. It seems to make sense on the face of it. If a suspect is informed of his rights, and then talks to police without a lawyer present it's kind of hard for him to claim he didn't know what he was doing. All he has to do is say "I claim those rights".

On the other hand, it was a very close split decision, and I'm sure there are going to be test cases all over the place. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Ted Bundy at one point of his trial tried to use the defense that he had not been properly 'Mirandized'. The judge ruled that, as a first-year law student, Bundy was well aware of his rights, and that Miranda was meant to protect those who were ignorant of said rights, not to help those in-the-know to evade justice.

[August]

Linking to the original article is customary ETR.

[ETR3(SS)]

Oops, forgot to include the link sorry.:oops:

[Ducimus]

You know what's funny about the Miranda rights?

When your arrested, the police are NOT required to read them to you. People expect it because its what they see on TV shows, but it's not reality.. The only time they are REQUIRED to read you the miranda rights, is if your about to be interrograted as part of an investigation.

[antikristuseke]

You know what's funny about the Miranda rights?

When your arrested, the police are NOT required to read them to you. People expect it because its what they see on TV shows, but it's not reality.. The only time they are REQUIRED to read you the miranda rights, is if your about to be interrograted as part of an investigation.

god damn it, beaten to the punch.

[HundertzehnGustav]

LOL really
"criminals" are required to say "i will remain silent"

wich is in fact... NOT remaining silent.
a psychological trick to break their silence....
once you have opened your mouth, (i will remain silent) the barrier is broken and it takes a huge amount of self discipline to get that barrier back up.

forcing people to say "i will remain silent"... is nothing but a fakking trap, if you ask me.
a cheap trick.

[August]

LOL really
"criminals" are required to say "i will remain silent"

I don't care what the article says, people who are accused of a crime are NOT required to say anything at all to the police or anyone else.

[Oberon]

Criminals, particularly those of the common street variety, rarely remain silent, no matter how much the arresting officer wishes they would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZT5Fq7KuPk

[frau kaleun]

Reminds me of Ron White's story about being thrown out of a bar in New York City and then arrested for public drunkenness. As he puts it, "I had the right to remain silent... I just didn't have the ability."

[Platapus]

The supreme court decision covered several issues.

What some here are not understanding is there one of the issues here encompasses two separate concepts

1. Citizen's right to remain silent (which is a right)

2. Police's decision to ask questions (which is a procedure)

States have different versions of the Miranda warning, it may differ even with in a state depending on the jurisdiction. This issue came up because of the two concepts I listed.

If an arrested person invokes their right to remain silent, can the police continue to ask him or her questions? Many jurisdictions and the federal government have amended their Miranda warnings to include the proviso that if the arrested person declares that they are invoking their fifth amendment rights, that the interrogation stops. The reason is that anything said after that may (not always) be excluded from evidence.

This ruling requires the person to inform the police that they do not wish to answer any questions. This would then, according to their procedure, let the police know to stop questioning the person.

I would, respectfully disagree with Justice Sotomayor. There is nothing wrong with requiring a person to state that they are voluntarily invoking a right. That is the entire reason for the requirement of reading to the person the Miranda warning -- so that the person can make the decision whether to invoke or not invoke the protections.

The "right to remain silent" is not to be taken literally. A person can still speak without waiving their fifth amendment rights. The applicable part of the fifth amendment is

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

For example, one could still ask the police to use the bathroom without waiving their fifth amendment rights. phew, good thing too! :oops:

[tater]

Miranda does nothing for me. Anyone too stupid to not understand their rights as a citizen in the US doesn't deserve the hand-holding Miranda supplies, IMO.

It's like the feds spending money to advertise welfare programs like EITC (they do this). I'm fine with some of these programs existing, but they shouldn't seek out "customers" actively.

Miranda is in effect a lowest common denominator rule. You assume that everyone is entirely ignorant.

In short, I'm OK with Miranda existing, but it is not some fundamental right, it is what it is, hand-holding for people who don't meet what I consider to be a minimal standard for citizenship—understanding the Constitution.

[The Third Man]

This just shows how rights, given by the government, can be taken away just as quickly.


Rights are given by the creator. Governments are created among men to ensure those rights.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Miranda does nothing for me. Anyone too stupid to not understand their rights as a citizen in the US doesn't deserve the hand-holding Miranda supplies, IMO.

First, stress does funny things to people, so they may just need reminding.

Second, having the officer speak those rights out forces him to personally reaffirm the principle and commitment actually exists. I'll contend this is psychologically important for both sides.

[August]

First, stress does funny things to people, so they may just need reminding.

Second, having the officer speak those rights out forces him to personally reaffirm the principle and commitment actually exists. I'll contend this is psychologically important for both sides.

I think you are absolutely correct here.

[tater]

First, stress does funny things to people, so they may just need reminding.

Second, having the officer speak those rights out forces him to personally reaffirm the principle and commitment actually exists. I'll contend this is psychologically important for both sides.


The second point is very well said. You've changed my mind on that level.

I still don't think that rights need to be "sold" to someone, it is their responsibility to know as citizens. I do think it's a good check on the police to force them to remind themselves (they need a higher standard as government agents with the ability to use deadly force in the name of the State).

<S>

[Sailor Steve]

LOL really
"criminals" are required to say "i will remain silent"

wich is in fact... NOT remaining silent.
a psychological trick to break their silence....
once you have opened your mouth, (i will remain silent) the barrier is broken and it takes a huge amount of self discipline to get that barrier back up.

forcing people to say "i will remain silent"... is nothing but a fakking trap, if you ask me.
a cheap trick.
So, before this ruling, If a suspect said "I want a lawyer", was that also a trap. The ruling merely covers what happens if a suspect does start babbling about anything and everything. If he doesn't talk he doesn't talk. No problem, and no trap. If, however, he does talk after being read his rights, he is understood to have waived those rights and can't go back and complain later that he was cheated.

I think you're reading a lot more into this than is actually there.

[Sailor Steve]

god damn it, beaten to the punch.
Please refrain from that kind of language. :sunny:

[frau kaleun]

Miranda does nothing for me. Anyone too stupid to not understand their rights as a citizen in the US doesn't deserve the hand-holding Miranda supplies, IMO.

If I'm not mistaken the "Miranda rights" are not exclusive to US citizens, but apply equally to anyone in the relevant situation with regard to US law enforcement.

So using "you're a citizen, you should already know what your rights are" doesn't quite hold up as an argument.

[Sailor Steve]

Miranda does nothing for me. Anyone too stupid to not understand their rights as a citizen in the US doesn't deserve the hand-holding Miranda supplies, IMO.
Of course that is demeaning to people who truly are too stupid to understand their rights, or not well-educated enough.

In short, I'm OK with Miranda existing, but it is not some fundamental right, it is what it is, hand-holding for people who don't meet what I consider to be a minimal standard for citizenship—understanding the Constitution.
Actually it is a fundemental right. Do you know anything of police interrogation procedures pre-Miranda? Read anything by Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, or watch the original Dragnet movie. All fiction, to be sure, but written by people of the time, and faithful to the reality of that time. It was accepted that if you didn't answer the question you choice was a fist to the face or a rubber hose to the head.

As I already said, Miranda didn't present any new rights. Those were already acknowledged. Miranda only required that the authorities be sure the suspect was aware of those rights. As for the Constitution, you seem to think the vast majority know what is in there, and yet I see people all the time refer to the Constitution but get it wrong.

[tater]

A fist to the face would be illegal regardless of Miranda.

Miranda does no more than educate the person of what their rights are, it's doesn't change their rights.

[Sailor Steve]

A fist to the face would be illegal regardless of Miranda.
True. But it happened.

Miranda does no more than educate the person of what their rights are, it's doesn't change their rights.
I've already pointed that out. Twice. I was objecting to your implication that people needed Miranda because of their own stupidity, or ignorance.

[antikristuseke]

Please refrain from that kind of language. :sunny:
This is a a joke, right?:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

This is a a joke, right?:hmmm:
Not at all. If you believe in God it's an insult. If you don't, then why invoke invoke the name at all?

It's offensive to some, and that's reason enough to avoid it. Unless of course you do it to intentionally offend.

It's also useless to any real conversation.

Just my opinion.

[antikristuseke]

Fair enough