Critical Update On Miranda Rights

[LansingAreaCaregiver]

Everyone needs to be aware of this! Yes, we are legal. Yes we should have nothing to hide. But as most here will tell you, it NEVER benefits you to speak to law enforcement without an attorney present. Looks like from here on out, you need to explicitly state that you wish to invoke the right to remain silent. It is a sad day...

 

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20100601/NEWS01/306010024/Supreme-Court-Suspects-must-say-they-want-to-be-silent

 

WASHINGTON — 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.

 

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

 

"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."

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

 

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively, 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. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

 

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

 

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

 

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

 

The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

 

The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.

[UrbanFarmer]

Everyone needs to be aware of this! Yes, we are legal. Yes we should have nothing to hide. But as most here will tell you, it NEVER benefits you to speak to law enforcement without an attorney present. Looks like from here on out, you need to explicitly state that you wish to invoke the right to remain silent. It is a sad day...

 

Indeed! This is insane!

[+EdwardGlen]

I couldn't believe this when I heard it today. I cannot wait until the Supreme Court is culled of the ultra right wing conservatives who sit on the bench now.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristobal-joshua-alex/right-wing-supreme-court_b_114496.html

 

http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6726/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-right-wing-clique/

[______]

Hate to say I agree with this decision but the guy FAILED to remain silent. He failed to ask for an attorney. Any time he opened his mouth he relinquished his rights.

[peanutbutter]

Thanks for posting that valuable information.

 

I had thought they could keep yelling at you for hours and days even after telling them "I want a lawyer and I want to stay quiet."

 

I didn't realize they had to stop.

 

** learning something new every day **

[drtarzanmd]

This is one of many reasons i made up

cards to keep inside your car and home :

 

I refuse to waive my 5th amendment to remain silent .

 

Do not ask me any questions.

 

I refuse to waive my 6th amendment to an attorney .

 

Do not ask me any questions without my attorney present.

 

I refuse to waive my 4th amendment right to be free from

unreasonable searches and seizures .

 

I do not consent to any search or seizures of myself ,

my home or of any property in my possession .

Do not ask me about my ownership interest in any property .

 

Any statement I make, or alleged consent I give ,

in response to your questions is hereby made under protest

and under duress and in submission to your claim of lawful authority

to force me to provide you with information .

 

If I am not presently under arrest or under investigatory detention ,

please allow me to leave .

 

I pass these out everywhere i go ...

It's really Important not to say a word ....