Dangerous Precedent being set here?

[Feuer Frei!]

Anything you say or don’t say can now be used against you.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them

SOURCE

[Buddahaid]

I can't say that I understand how not asking after the other accident victims is an admission of guilt, and not just anything else. That would fail beyond a reasonable doubt to my thinking.

[Jimbuna]

Here in the UK your not able to rely on anything in court you wouldn't answer when questioned.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

[Wolferz]

The communist state of California continues the march to screw its citizens.

I would think that, at the most, the guy could be convicted of blatant negligence and involuntary manslaughter.
As usual, too many variables are left out of the story to make an armchair judgement. Was he drunk? Did he not have insurance? Is this the new method for an insurance company to get out of paying a claim?
WTF!??

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Here in the UK your not able to rely on anything in court you wouldn't answer when questioned.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

I always get mixed up with the old Miranda.

Sam Tyler: Kim Trent, I'm arresting you in suspicion of armed robbery. You do not have to say anything but it may harm your def... No, that's not it, is it? What is it? ahh... You have the right to remain silent...
Gene: You're nicked!

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe he didn't say anything because he was in shock.

That aside, I can only see this as a bad thing. The relevant clause from the Fifth Amendment is simple: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". So this ruling seems to be saying "The Constitution says we can't make you say anything that might incriminate you, but we can assume your silence itself to be incriminating."

I did like the quote from dissenting justice Goodwin Liu: "The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one's right to remain silent."

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Here in the UK your not able to rely on anything in court you wouldn't answer when questioned.

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

It is different in Scotland Jim, our caution and charge is still the old one where remaining silent is still an option.

I'm arresting you for *****. You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say willb e noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand? (Note any replies made) Do you have anything to say? (Note any replies made).

Cheers

Gary

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I can't say that I understand how not asking after the other accident victims is an admission of guilt, and not just anything else. That would fail beyond a reasonable doubt to my thinking.

I would agree. Not asking about the victims may indicate a lack of remorse or empathy, but neither of them is against the law.

This is a precedent that needs to be carefully bounded. The police already have too much authority that can be misused. The last thing we need to tolerate is giving them even more authority that can be abused.

[Wolferz]

I'm sure the ACLU will have something to say about it.
Misinterpretation of federal law can't be superseded by any lower court.
I'm sure their ruling will be overturned by a higher court like the SCOTUS.
IIRC, insurance companies tell you not to say anything to anyone after you're involved in a MVA. Except maybe to ask the other occupants if they're OK and then you shut your mouth about the accident.
Miranda rights mean what they say. He had the right to remain silent unless his attorney was present. Even if he had asked, the cops wouldn't have told him anything.

[Buddahaid]

I get the impression that a considerable amount of time lapsed between when he was arrested and when his Miranda rights were read.

[Platapus]

One of the important issues concerns what exactly is a Miranda Warning?

Being read your "Miranda Rights" does NOT establish the right to remain silent. All persons (not limited to citizens) in the US already have a right to remain silent

"...or shall any person ...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

All a Miranda Warning does is remind/inform the person of their already existing right to remain silent. Therefore it does not matter when a person exercises their right to remain silent with regard to if/when they are given their Miranda Warning.

Unfortunately, the courts have seen it differently at times. The courts have recognized that there are exceptions to Miranda

• Even if a suspect is in custody, officer's statements do not meet the standard of custodial interrogation unless they are either express or equivalent statements, which are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response
• Police hostage negotiations are not interrogations
• A secretly taped meeting between a suspect and a police officer, where the suspect attended voluntarily
• While in custody, Miranda is not required if the suspect is unaware that he is voluntarily talking to a police officer
• Police may ask standard booking question without necessitating Miranda warnings
• The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...a-lawyers.html)

Talk about loopholes.



Lets take a look at that last one again as it is becoming more common.



The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety






1. Who decides what is necessary for public safety?
2. What exactly is and ain't public safety?
3. What are the boundaries (time/location) for "public" "safety"?
4. At what point does an individual's rights become subordinate to the "public" "safety"?


An increasing slippery slope under the emotional umbrella of "for the greater good/safety".

I did not know Camel's had noses that big.

[Aktungbby]

OF SOME INTEREST:[QUOTE]
You Can’t Be Silent if You Want to Be Silent

On Monday, June 17, 2013, in a closely-contested decision, the United States Supreme Court held that prosecutors can in fact point to an out-of-custody suspect’s silence in response to police questioning as evidence of guilt. (Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).) The only way to prevent the government from introducing evidence at trial of the suspect’s silence is to explicitly invoke the right to say nothing. In other words, without being warned by the police or advised by a lawyer, and without even the benefit of the familiar Miranda warnings (which might trigger a “I want to invoke my right to be silent!”), the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, “I’m not saying anything because I invoke my right to silence.”
In the case that led to this new rule, a police officer who was investigating a murder asked the suspect (and eventual defendant), who was not then in custody, a series of questions over the course of an hour. The officer did not Mirandize the suspect. The suspect answered the questions, but hesitated when the officer asked whether a ballistics test would prove that the shell casings at the crime scene matched the suspect’s gun. He fidgeted for a bit and didn’t answer the question; the officer then moved on to additional questions that the suspect answered. Prosecutors then charged the suspect with murder. At trial, they argued that his reaction to the officer’s shell-casing question suggested his guilt. The Court ruled that this argument by the prosecutors was proper because the defendant had not clearly indicated that he intended to assert his Fifth Amendment right when asked about the shell casings.[/QUOTE] OF CONTRIBUTORY INTEREST from English common Law:

England and Wales

Main article: Right to silence in England and Wales
The right to silence has a long history in England and Wales, first having been codified in the Judges' Rules in 1912. A defendant in a criminal trial has a choice whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Further, there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries.
At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 under Code C adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:

• fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
• fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
• fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
• fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.[10] Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence.[11]
This does not apply to investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, where there is no right to silence, nor in relation to terrorism.
Under Section 49[12] and Section 53[13] of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it is an offence to fail to disclose when requested the key to encrypted data (with a penalty of two years in prison).

It would appear that both English common law, from which we derive our own, and the United States Supreme Court, have ruled on this...the California Supreme Court is following a Texas precedent: ie Stare Decises as of 7/13/2013 @ Wolfertz: I fear you are right but the ruling already comes from 'above' from that Commie Lone Star state and not enlightened California!

Misinterpretation of federal law can't be superseded by any lower court.
I'm sure their ruling will be overturned by a higher court like the SCOTUS.

It is reasonable to inquire of the other party in a serious(fatal?) accident, if not simply good manners and 'assistance must be rendered' in most states...next case please!

[Buddahaid]

It doesn't seem much of a stretch until it's confess to the crime sinner or we'll take your silence as an admission of guilt.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

It doesn't seem much of a stretch until it's confess to the crime sinner or we'll take your silence as an admission of guilt.

You're gittin on this railroad pilgrim, Whether you're innocent or not

Just another tool for recruiting bodies to work at the in prison industries.

See: slavery.
Also see: Pressgang.
Pays to keep your nose clean

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

It doesn't seem much of a stretch until it's confess to the crime sinner or we'll take your silence as an admission of guilt.

Aw jeeze didja hafta go there ?!