Washinton Post story here.The Suporeme court ras ruled that you may not invoke your right to remain silent by in fact remaining silent. You must explicitly say you wish to remain silent.
I find this hilarious. You’ve just been told, “You have the right to remain silent…”, but if you do remain silent, you have given up the right to remain silent.
And I can’t actually say I disagree with the ruling. The cops kept yakking at this suspect for hours, and when he finally does open his mouth, he blows it and incriminates himself. What a maroon. Really, the idiot didn’t remain silent enough.
I’m fine with that ruling. The “right to remain silent” doesn’t mean literally that. It’s just short-hand for “you have the right to refuse to answer our questions during interrogation and you have a right to avoid compulsion to incriminate yourself.” It doesn’t actually mean “you have the right to not talk”.
“Suspects must say they want to be silent” isn’t a contradiction because “say” and “silent” are referring to two different things.
According to the article, he didn’t do either one - remain silent, or tell them he wanted to. He did answer some of their questions, only briefly. So how was anybody to know he was trying to invoke his right to remain silent? He didn’t do it.
I think I agree with the ruling, but this guy doesn’t seem to be the best example of the idea.
To remain silent in the sense of the constitution (shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself) does not require a person to sit completely mute.
It would be hell on the poor suspect if he had to use the restroom or was suffering severe chest pains if mentioning that would force him to give up his rights.
Also, I was under the impression that you are required to identify yourself to police, even if you wish to invoke your right to remain silent. Is that true?
I’m not seeing a problem with the majority ruling on the SCOTUS in this case. If the suspect had wanted to use his right to remain silent, he could have either (1) remained silent, or (2) said that he wanted to invoke the right. Answering some of the police questions, but not others, doesn’t seen to me to be invoking that right.
However, his big problem was answering the trick question,
The correct answer would have been either,
(1) “No”, because he didn’t shoot the boy, or
(2) “I’m not answering that question”, because it’s a trick question trying to elicit a confession, or
(3) silence.
Answer #1 might mean that he wasn’t penitent over the murder, either. So that’s not the appropriate answer.
Correct answers include, “I want to talk to a lawyer,” silence, or “I’m not answering any more questions.” “I didn’t shoot him” is potentially risky but a better answer than “no.”
then they can sit in the little room with me smelling like piss and shit. And once they try to do the shame the crook walk i can simply tell anybody around they refused to let me use a bathroom.
Then they can pay the janitor to clean the room, the car and anywhere else I contaminated with hazardous waste.
I can also be the ultimate pacifist, escape isn’t an option, anybody can run faster than me in a wheelchair and I cant do stairs. It is amazingly well known amongst my friends and family that I cant do stairs. if someone tried to claim that I was caught trying to scarper down stairs and out a door, they would get soundly laughed at and asked when Jesus made the visit to the room to heal me.
To be honest the only thig they would get on tape would be me repeating ad nauseum i will not speak without a lawyer present. I don’t care how guilty or innocent I am, I will not speak to any police official without a lawyer present unless I had gimped in under my own power to report something.
Yes, exactly. Even if he had remained totally ilent (and technically would not be invoking his Right to remain silent, neither the courts nor the police have the power to compel speech, and the police’s ability to punish lack of speech is very limited.