# Salinas v Texas: "What you don't say may be used against you" or "Why do we even have Miranda laws?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287 "2013-06-18T17:12:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/81 "2013-06-21T02:38:16Z")
Well, far from the first time I’ve disagreed with a Supreme Court decision. My view is that you should have the right to refuse to answer, and that this should not be taken as prejudicial. Otherwise, with use and custom, not answering would become equivalent (in the mind of a typical juror) with a confession. This is a line of argument I think the legal system should prohibit in trials. (“If he’s not guilty, why doesn’t he come right up here on the stand and say so? Hmmmm?”) This is already a view held by no few people, such as those who hold that most (or even all) legal procedural technicalities only benefit the guilty. (I actually once met someone who argued that child molesters shouldn’t even be given a trial at all, just taken out and shot. Um…) ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/82 "2013-06-21T03:00:01Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > That’s an excellent answer. Though, if the only purpose is to cut the tension in the room as you **jtgain** indicate, it strikes me that essentially any gesture empowering the interviewee would work. They could offer him ice cream. And maybe they should. Thank you for getting back to me on that. Well, but giving the subject an ice cream does not result in creating an atmosphere similar to that of a subject being interrogated as a result of his/her own volition, in other words a non-custodial interrogation. A purpose of Miranda was to remove the inherent coerciveness of the custodial interrogation, in other words create an atmosphere more akin to that of an interrogation of a person not in custody, which is presumably not coercive or as coercive as custodial interrogation. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/83 "2013-06-21T05:10:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Police questioning in custody is coercive. Police questioning of a person NOT in custody isn’t coercive, since the person being questioned is free at any time to leave and go about his business. I would say the 5th amendment is implied when it represents a person’s right NOT to talk. Certainly suggesting that a person’s non-response represents a response crosses this line and that would be the test. The concept of coercion is reflected in the expectations the general public has regarding law enforcement. More importantly, an officer’s OPINION of what someone was thinking (based on a non-answer) is filled with an infinite number of ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/84 "2013-06-21T05:22:06Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > I disagree. I think people behave differently around authority figures- particularly cops- than they otherwise would and that the police could (and probably do) make use of this fact. It may be legally impossible to “coerce” (legal significance) a person not in custody but I think it’s obvious that the police can coerce (colloquial significance) a person not in custody. I’d wager that most of the “dumb criminals” who get nervous and self-incriminate before they’re taken into custody could tell you about such coercion first-hand. The rhetoric that such people are just stupid is satisfying, but there’s a good chance they’re just normal people who were made nervous by the police and pressured into saying things they wouldn’t have otherwise said. Especially when I know that when people ask police, “Am I free to go?” and rather than saying yes, the cop will (legally) ask more questions, ask them why they want to leave, what do you have to hide, etc. If you ask a cop if you can leave and he answers anything other than, “Yes.” what would most people do? ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/85 "2013-06-21T05:23:26Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, far from the first time I’ve disagreed with a Supreme Court decision. **My view is that you should have the right to refuse to answer, and that this should not be taken as prejudicial.** Otherwise, with use and custom, not answering would become equivalent (in the mind of a typical juror) with a confession. This is a line of argument I think the legal system should prohibit in trials. (“If he’s not guilty, why doesn’t he come right up here on the stand and say so? Hmmmm?”) Emphasis mine and applause. Seriously, are we heading towards: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do or do not say or do not do may be used against you in a court of law? Not everyone wandering around is a freaking lawyer nor a doper fighting ignorance with each waking moment, Some people are fucking stupid, some people have English as second language, but they all have rights. The dude stopped taking at some point. Maybe it was because the next step would be self incrimination, a valid reason to stop talking I suppose. He didn’t say the magic word so the fact that he stopped talking is used against him? This is the very heart of the fifth amendment, is it not? Yeah, I know, if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about yadda yadda but if that’s the case, maybe we don’t need any rights… Bring on the panopticon. A police state is a safe state after all. \ ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/86 "2013-06-21T07:52:55Z")
This is a terrible, terrible decision, and easily the one I’ve been the most depressed about since I have been old enough to remember SCOTUS decisions. This one is really, really bad folks. No one should ever have to assert their rights. Silence in response to a question should AUTOMATICALLY be assumed to be protected by the 5th amendment and that your silence to particular questions cannot be used as evidence against you in court. HOWEVER! I also don’t believe you have any right to selectively answer some questions and then not answer others. It’s like this in court too. If you take the stand to defend yourself, you open yourself up to cross examination and must answer truthfully. You can’t selectively answer some questions in court and not others. I believe it’s the same thing when brought before congress for testimony. You have to assert your 5th amendment right to remain silent to pretty much every question other than what your name is, because if you answer even ONE question, no matter how seemingly irrelevantly incriminating to you it may be, you’ve waived your right. Is that not correct? In my mind, if you have voluntarily begun answering some questions to police, you have waived your 5th amendment rights to remain silent, and then anything you say (or not say) can be used against you, whether you are in custody or not. But that’s not how this ruling reads. This ruling reads that if a policeman came up and started asking questions, and I just stood mute, that it could be used against me. And that’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/87 "2013-06-21T11:03:13Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > The dude stopped taking at some point. Maybe it was because the next step would be self incrimination, a valid reason to stop talking I suppose. He didn’t say the magic word so the fact that he stopped talking is used against him? This is the very heart of the fifth amendment, is it not? No. As the opinion said, there are many reasons why a person might stop answering questions or remain mute. An intent to assert his 5th amendment right is only one possible explanation. He could be flummoxed by the question, trying to think of a good lie, or being silent to protect a friend. Without an express invocation of his 5th amendment right, it can’t be simply assumed that he was trying to do that. To take your example further, what if the suspect was asked where he was when the bank robbery went down? He answers: “Well, um…” and then stays silent. Since he started to speak, can the “well, um” be used against him along with the silence? Can the cop testify that he said, “well, um” only and not mention his subsequent silence? Surely the jury will infer that is all he said. It would create an unworkable model of what is or isn’t admissible. This “magic words” argument is hyperbole. The suspect doesn’t need to speak like a lawyer. Any words which indicate to a reasonable officer that he is refusing to speak to him puts the officer on notice that he is invoking the 5th and not merely thinking of his next lie, or is stumbling over the question. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/88 "2013-06-21T14:09:15Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > And that’s OK. Personally I found Breyer’s dissenting opinion on this matter compelling: > > …Would you trust Breyer’s account? > I don’t want to argue that at all. In fact, I’d be fine with police doing what they’re doing now provided they couldn’t tiptoe past the Fifth Amendment by sort-of-but-not-really interrogating people or otherwise relying on potential perpetrators failing to explicitly invoke their rights. > I absolutely am concerned about all the things to which you allude; I just happen to be on about this thing in this thread. 😉 > > Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some hand-wringing, bleeding heart who would rather hug criminals and bemoan their poor upbringing than punish them; if they’re guilty, I want their ass in jail. I just think the government should mostly bear the responsibility of proving their guilt w/o their help. I think the quote from Breyer shows pretty clearly why this is a bad decision. If I witnessed a crime, I would not want to talk to police knowing my silence could suddenly be used against me if the police decided to ask questions indicating I was a suspect. I would be quite nervous about whether I had remained silent in the “correct” way versus remaining silent in a way that let the police use it to try to implicate me. I’d rather just not talk to the police at all than start answering questions as a witness. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/89 "2013-06-21T20:35:28Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > . . . HOWEVER! I also don’t believe you have any right to selectively answer some questions and then not answer others. It’s like this in court too. If you take the stand to defend yourself, you open yourself up to cross examination and must answer truthfully. You can’t selectively answer some questions in court and not others. . . . Well, I can’t agree with this… It seems to lead to troubling consequences. Why shouldn’t I be able to stop at any point, once the questioning gets too close to inviting (or demanding) self-incrimination. Obviously, there’s a serious problem with jury perception. “Were you in San Francisco on that date?” “Yes.” “Were you on Deal Street?” “Yes.” “Were you in the Bank?” “I decline to answer.” Jury goes, “Hmmmmm!” For strategic reasons, the defense would rather not have you on the stand at all. But in my opinion, one’s fundamental rights are not abridged by one’s earlier waiver of their exercise. (e.g., if I allow four soldiers to stay overnight in my barn…it doesn’t mean that the whole Regiment may then take up quarters in my house!) ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/90 "2013-06-22T10:11:45Z")
You may not agree with it, but that’s the way things work in congressional hearings/testimony, as well as court testimony. You either have to assert your 5th amendment rights for all possible questions (for example, in court, by refusing to take the stand at all and the prosecution/state cannot compel you to take the stand), or you have to answer any and all questions truthfully under penalty of perjury. You can’t say once you’re on the stand, “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.” If you’re ever pulled before congress for a congressional hearing, you either have to refuse to answer basically every question, or you waive your right to remain silent. This is why when they drag in a CEO for some financial corporation or whatever, every single question will get the same exact response, “under the advice of my counsel I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I cannot be compelled to incriminate myself under the 5th ammendment.” or something along those lines. Even seemingly banal questions. I am NOT a lawyer but this is my layman’s understanding. I would invite correction if I am mistaken. And so, since this is the way it works for congressional hearings and court proceedings, I see no difference for why it shouldn’t be the same for police questioning, even if you haven’t been arrested and brought in for questioning. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/91 "2013-06-23T07:22:17Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > I get the same sense, actually. Maybe the answer to my question of the apparent philosophical conflict between Miranda and the Salinas decision is that the Salinas decision was written by people who don’t even want Miranda to be law. Not a terribly satisfying outlook, but possibly closer to the truth… Bingo. Stated a little differently, the current Court isn’t prepared to overrule Miranda or Griffin, but has no interest in expanding them. Frankly, if you’re a liberal on criminal procedure, you should be happy with this compromise. It could be worse. Indeed, will be, if Thomas and Scalia have their way. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/92 "2013-06-23T18:03:09Z")
True story: I am currently grading law review candidates’ write-on submissions on the topic of - you guessed it - pre-Miranda silence. Fortunately it’s a closed universe problem or this case would have fucked up everything. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/93 "2013-06-24T15:12:31Z")
> [@trabajabamos](#): > > So two cops catch me on the street and position themselves in such a way that they’d have to physically step aside for me to leave. They don’t say I can’t leave, but neither do they make it physically or socially “convenient” for me to do so. They ask me questions and I inadvertently incriminate myself somehow. Was I “in custody”, implying a violation of Miranda rights? How would I even begin to prove that? I’m guessing all the court would need to deflate such a claim would be the (completely true) testimony that the cops didn’t explicitly tell me I couldn’t leave. In that situation, IMO, you were “seized” meaning in custody. Seized and custody are the same. From United States v. Mendenhall (known as the Mendenhall test); > [@](#): > > We conclude that a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. [n6] **Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers** , the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16; Dunaway v. [p555] New York, 442 U.S. 200, 207, and n. 6; 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 53-55 (1978). In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/94 "2013-06-24T17:37:57Z")
A few people have mentioned that with the 5th Amendment, you do not get to pick and choose what you reply to. I would argue that if SCOTUS distinguishes between pre- and post-custodial questioning in _Salinas_ then it is not unreasonable that the 5th Amendment can have different applications as well. Why the difference? Well post-custodial I know that the cops/DA is trying to get me to confess. Pre-custodial I am not aware if I am a suspect and the police have a distinct unfair advantage. Suppose the following questioning takes place: Cop: How long have you lived next to Joe Pedo? Me: About 2 years. Cop: Did you know him well? Me: Well we would say hi to each other if we saw each other. Cop: Were you ever in his basement? At this point in time I’m starting to get uncomfortable about where the line of questioning is going. I’ve never been in his basement but I’ve been in his house. I don’t answer. Cop: Let me repeat the question. Were you ever in his basement? Remembering something from SD. Me: Am I free to go? Cop: What are you trying to hide? Me: Nothing. I just want to know if I’m free to go. Cop: Why won’t you answer the question? Were you ever in his basement? Me: \ Cop: If you’d feel more comfortable, we could continue this at the station. Me: Are you arresting me? Cop: All I’m saying is that we could continue this at the station if you’d rather do this there. So in the scenerio which I feel is entirely realistic, why wouldn’t I reasonably expect my refusal to answer to be protected under the 5th and given the situation, why shouldn’t I be allowed to invoke the 5th once I didn’t like the direction of the questioning given that **at the beginning** there was no way for me to know I was under any suspicion. So now under Salinas, everyone should treat any situation with a cop as being under suspicion and invoke the 5th immediately and refuse to help the police. To be honest, the next time I’m stopped on a traffic violation and the cop asks the the (in)famous question “Do you know how fast you were going?” or “Do you know why I stopped you?” I am going to reply, “Given the _Salinas_ decision, I am explicitly invoking my 5th Amendment rights.” ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/95 "2013-06-25T04:49:55Z")
Many pre-arrest (non-custodial) interrogations are like the one in Salinas, where he very definitely knew he was a suspect. The problem, as every perp in a Columbo episode can tell you, is that if you don’t cooperate you virtually guarantee that the cops will assume you’re guilty. No, that inference isn’t admissible at trial (see Griffin), but it can be and routinely is used as a guide to investigation. That’s why the guilty typically cooperate. They’re trying to bluff their way out. Frankly, I don’t think requiring Miranda warnings in such cases would make much of a difference. In any event, it isn’t and probably never will be. Yes, you can as a matter of routine invoke the Fifth every time a police officer asks you a question. But, you’ll get a lot of grief for your trouble. And the claim isn’t always sustained. You’re not allowed to use the Fifth to protect others, for example. Indeed, being able to test the claim is the plurality’s main reason for requiring express invocation of the privilege. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/96 "2013-06-25T22:52:04Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > In that situation, IMO, you were “seized” meaning in custody. Seized and custody are the same. I don’t believe this is correct. When you are in custody, you are also always seized, but the reverse isn’t true. You can be seized, but not be in custody. For example, a traffic stop or a Terry stop. You are seized, but aren’t considered to be in custody since your detention is brief (or so you hope). Think of this: Cop (after pulling over a driver and walking up to the window): How are you folks tonight? Driver: Just fine. Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over? Driver (nervously, but truthfully): Is it because you know I murdered and raped 14 people tonight??? Oops. I mean, I want to invoke my 5th amendment rights now. Is the driver’s statement inadmissible because of no Miranda? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/97 "2013-06-26T15:51:23Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Cop (after pulling over a driver and walking up to the window): How are you folks tonight? > > Driver: Just fine. > Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over? > Driver (nervously, but truthfully): Is it because you know I murdered and raped 14 people tonight??? …the continuing adventures of _ **“The World’s WORST Poker Player!!!”** _ \ ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/98 "2013-06-26T16:03:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow, man, mind-blowing. > > The solution to this daunting paradox is: not everything you say can be used against you. Specifically, the invocation of the right to silence cannot itself be used against you; the prosecutor cannot even mention it at trial. The problem is, this carries an expectation that the average citizen knows that this is in fact the solution to the paradox. The Court is asking people to be far more aware of nuances in legal interpretation than they normally are, to be aware that your silence can be used against you, but your invocation of your right to remain silent can’t. A right that can only be exercised by properly threading one’s way through legal technicalities isn’t much of a right at all, especially when one can’t foresee that one might imminently have a need to educate oneself about the maze. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/99 "2013-06-26T16:34:43Z")
I think that might be a bit of an overreaction. Here’s how you thread your way through the highly technical maze: 1. Tell law enforcement officers that you are invoking your right to remain silent. 2. Tell law enforcement officers you want an attorney. 3. Profit. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287/100 "2013-06-26T18:01:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think that might be a bit of an overreaction. Here’s how you thread your way through the highly technical maze: > > 1. Tell law enforcement officers that you are invoking your right to remain silent. > 2. Tell law enforcement officers you want an attorney. > 3. Profit. The point is, you have to _know_ to do #1, rather than simply remain silent. Sure, _we_ know this now, but I’ll bet that even after such publicity as the SCOTUS decision got, 90% of Americans don’t. ETA: That really shouldn’t be the sort of technicality that should make the slightest difference. If you were going to draw a line, that seems like one of the stupidest possible places to draw it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salinas-v-texas-what-you-dont-say-may-be-used-against-you-or-why-do-we-even-have-miranda-laws/661287.md?page=6)