http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)
QuoteWASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
Are we Britain yet?
:horrormirth:
also, suspects must now explicitly and audibly invoke their right to a fair trial or they will be subject to Judge Dredd style justice.
FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFCUKFCUK!!!!
:argh!:
So, the new routine is this: "I want a lawyer, and I aint' saying nuthin!"
Coming soon to your courtroom: A semantic argument regarding double negatives and the use of tasers.
Lol, you guys think you have rights.
I'm not really sure how this is new :?
Of course if you just sit there and don't say anything the cops will keep badgering you until you do. Which is why the very first thing out of your mouth is supposed to be 'I want a lawyer'.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 01, 2010, 09:09:34 PM
I'm not really sure how this is new :?
Of course if you just sit there and don't say anything the cops will keep badgering you until you do. Which is why the very first thing out of your mouth is supposed to be 'I want a lawyer'.
169% THIS
...I hate whites...
KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY FRUITY HATS!!!
\
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/Carmen_Miranda_Rights.gif)
Innocent till wut?
/
:mullet:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 01, 2010, 09:09:34 PM
I'm not really sure how this is new :?
Of course if you just sit there and don't say anything the cops will keep badgering you until you do. Which is why the very first thing out of your mouth is supposed to be 'I want a lawyer'.
Yep.
Seriously. "I invoke my right, and want a lawyer." Then STFU. If not, they can coerce you until you say something they can use. It's not rocket science, and it's not really anything new.
Haven't you read the recent patch? we're running Free Country v2010.6
\
You have to ask politely for your constitutional rights, like this:
\
"May I please have the right to remain silent, sir?"
\
(http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/42051-1/policeman-cartoon.jpg)
That is how I have always understood the Miranda Rights to work... they tell you what your rights are and you either invoke them or you don't. If you do, they shut up and get you a lawyer. If you don't they badger you for hours.
I am confused as to why this is such a big deal...
QuoteThe ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
LEARN2KYFMS.
If, after being silent for a while, you decide you would like to confess... No, you cannot take that back. You fucking failed at being silent. Had you remained silent, as you have the right to, or instead of saying something stupid said "I am not going to talk to you." you wouldn't be as fucked as you are now. Nobody seems to be saying your only options are saying "I want to be silent" or answering questions, though that seems to what those against this are arguing? They're saying "If you consider remaining silent to be exercising your right to do so, and then talk, you void that right."
Has it been in the past that by remaining silent the police were not allowed to continue interrogating you?
How much silence was required before you were officially silent and they had to stop asking questions?
It seems reasonable that you have to tell them you are not answering questions, rather than just ignoring them and hoping they get the message.
Quote from: Ferka Zarco on June 02, 2010, 03:43:22 PM
QuoteThe ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
LEARN2KYFMS.
If, after being silent for a while, you decide you would like to confess... No, you cannot take that back. You fucking failed at being silent. Had you remained silent, as you have the right to, or instead of saying something stupid said "I am not going to talk to you." you wouldn't be as fucked as you are now. Nobody seems to be saying your only options are saying "I want to be silent" or answering questions, though that seems to what those against this are arguing? They're saying "If you consider remaining silent to be exercising your right to do so, and then talk, you void that right."
Has it been in the past that by remaining silent the police were not allowed to continue interrogating you?
How much silence was required before you were officially silent and they had to stop asking questions?
It seems reasonable that you have to tell them you are not answering questions, rather than just ignoring them and hoping they get the message.
IAWTC.
I think the issue is that "rights" are now assumed to be waived until you explicitly invoke them. But really, this is nothing new. Police are specially trained to sidestep constitutional rights anyway. They are taught how to sneak-attack suspects to get them to either incriminate themselves or waive their rights. This ruling isn't the "police can't say anything to a suspect until they do everything in the State's power to prevent the suspect from accidentally incriminating himself" that many people would like, but it at least clears the legal mist and gives any of us as potential suspects a clear directive: Invoke your rights, and shut up.
Law prof and cop agree: never ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to the cops about a crime, even if you're innocent
http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html
It also creates a gigantic problem for police, if their suspects are aware of this doctrine. As it is, cops will keep talking to you after you invoke your rights. They do this subtly, in a kind of 'informal small-talk' kind of way, but as long as you're talking they're listening to every word you say. People think asking for a lawyer exempts them from anything that transpires between the time they ask for a lawyer and the time one shows up. But this, way if you invoke your right to silence specifically, the cops have to leave you alone.
When dealing with Bureaucracies, the Symbol is given more import than the Symbolized.