Supreme Court Limits Right Against Self-Incrimination

[TRWXXA]

Sorry, I got hijacked when somebody said he thought that reading people their rights was BS.

That was me!
(BTW: I thought you'd were leaving this thread for good.)

I stand by what I said. Miranda is just an excuse for liberal, activist judges and lawyers to turn criminals loose. It was a B.S. ruling. If you're too stupid to know and exercise your rights, you deserve what you get.

 

[Joe Williams]

I've been reading this thread, and still haven't seen an answer to a question I have:

How is requiring you to tell the police you aren't going to talk to them an infringement on your rights?

 

[rmabrey]

How is requiring you to tell the police you aren't going to talk to them an infringement on your rights?

I don't think it is an infringement on rights either.

Its not a hard concept to grasp. If you remain silent for hours the cops will assume you just don't like the question or don't want to answer that question.

If you say I want to invoke my 5th amendment rights or right to remain silent, end of discussion. Your rights are still there, having to say you want to use your right is no different then getting an LTCH to carry a gun. Sure none of us think we should have to do it but we DO

 

[TRWXXA]

The ruling just removes the ambiguity in the situation. If a suspect wants to sit there and do an impression of a clam, then the police are under no obligation to stop asking questions. If the suspect asserts his 5th amendment right, then there is no ambiguity and the cops must cease the interrogation. It's no different for the suspect's right to counsel either. Until he asserts that right, the cops are under no obligation to bring an attorney into the questioning. But once he does, the police will stop the questioning, make a note that the suspect has invoked his rights, and will note the time.

 

[rambone]

I stand by what I said. Miranda is just an excuse for liberal, activist judges and lawyers to turn criminals loose. It was a B.S. ruling. If you're too stupid to know and exercise your rights, you deserve what you get.

Well you really enjoy police power don't you?

Half of this forum doesn't understand their rights and the constitution. That doesn't necessarily make them stupid. And the fact that they don't have the laws memorized doesn't mean that it would be right for cops to walk all over them.

Rights are things you may do without government interference. Rights are restraints on Government. To say people don't get rights that they don't know about, is to support Government breaking the constitution to suit its needs.

 

[Rob377]

You have the right to confess and have your confession ignored after the fact. Well at least you did until those jackbooted thugs took it away.

 

[Joe Williams]

Well you really enjoy police power don't you?

Half of this forum doesn't understand their rights and the constitution. That doesn't necessarily make them stupid.snip.

Either that, or lazy. Rights aren't welfare. They aren't given or bestowed, they are fought for and defended. If a person isn't willing to take the time to learn them, to learn the very basics of our system of government, they are a drag on freedom. It simply is not to much to expect a person to have the minimal courage to say "I'm not speaking to you, and I want a lawyer." Nor is it too much to expect them to know they have the right. The bill of rights is one page of paper. If we think it is too much to know that one page, and to have the courage to enforce those rights, then we know why freedom is lost... weakness, stupidity, and cowardice.

 

[dross]

I was confused when this was discussed before, and I'm still confused. What is the alternative to having to say you are exercising your right to remain silent? This is an honest question, not a rhetorical question.

If a cop is questioning me, and I don't say anything, when are you guys suggesting he should assume I'm invoking my right to remain silent? One question? Two? Ten? And then after that assumption has been made, he must stop the interrogation?

Please tell me how this works in your ideal.

Well you really enjoy police power don't you?

Half of this forum doesn't understand their rights and the constitution. That doesn't necessarily make them stupid. And the fact that they don't have the laws memorized doesn't mean that it would be right for cops to walk all over them.

Rights are things you may do without government interference. Rights are restraints on Government. To say people don't get rights that they don't know about, is to support Government breaking the constitution to suit its needs.

I think I understand my rights - natural, and those recognized by the Constitution - better than most.

Please, do what no one has done, and this is my third attempt in this thread - please answer my question.

 

[rmabrey]

I was confused when this was discussed before, and I'm still confused. What is the alternative to having to say you are exercising your right to remain silent? This is an honest question, not a rhetorical question.

If a cop is questioning me, and I don't say anything, when are you guys suggesting he should assume I'm invoking my right to remain silent? One question? Two? Ten? And then after that assumption has been made, he must stop the interrogation?

Please tell me how this works in your ideal.

Still looking for an answer.

I think I understand my rights - natural, and those recognized by the Constitution - better than most.

Please, do what no one has done, and this is my third attempt in this thread - please answer my question.

There no longer is an alternative. You have to say that you are exercising your right to remain silent or they will continue to question you. according to this ruling, they can question to for the rest of your life till you exercise that right.

 

[dross]

There no longer is an alternative. You have to say that you are exercising your right to remain silent or they will continue to question you. according to this ruling, they can question to for the rest of your life till you exercise that right.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[jbombelli]

Either that, or lazy. Rights aren't welfare. They aren't given or bestowed, they are fought for and defended. If a person isn't willing to take the time to learn them, to learn the very basics of our system of government, they are a drag on freedom. It simply is not to much to expect a person to have the minimal courage to say "I'm not speaking to you, and I want a lawyer." Nor is it too much to expect them to know they have the right. The bill of rights is one page of paper. If we think it is too much to know that one page, and to have the courage to enforce those rights, then we know why freedom is lost... weakness, stupidity, and cowardice.

You say that like knowing the Bill of Rights is all you need to know. Sure. The Bill of Rights is one page of paper. But the Supreme Court has issued THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PAGES of decisions to let you know how and when those rights apply. Have you memorized all those pages?

I said it before. I see threads just about everyday where police officers, who are supposedly trained in this, get it wrong. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. I've seen judges get it wrong many times (especially activist judges who base their decisions on political leanings). Hell, the Supreme Court can't even be unanimous on ANYTHING involving our rights.

Do you really think "knowing our rights" is just an easy, cut-and-dried thing? But I will agree that as citizens we have a duty to know and exercise our rights the best we can.

But with the arguing I see going back and forth between regular people, police, etc., even right here on this board, it's not reasonable to expect people to just "know their rights" and assert that it's just one page of paper they have to know.

 

[Libertarian01]

Dross,

Please note first that as I posted previously I do not disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on an intellectual level. Rather, my concern is on how this will lean toward LE when "the rubber meets the road."

To articulate my area of concern I must presume certain concepts. The first axiom I will presume is that, on average, most LE personnel are more comfortable with conflict than the average citizen. While they may not like it, they become used to conflict by dealing with people through the nature of their work. They are not allowed to pass the argumentative citizen up the chain to their superior as most other employee's of private companies do. Rather they are compelled to deal with folks who are not cooperative.

Think about many of the people you may know outside of this realm of generally gun toting patriots who are more than willing to tell you where they believe their rights stand. Consider the elderly checkout lady, or the young man working at the music store who are just trying to get by like millions of Americans. They are very uncomfortable w/ conflict.

Now take that average person and put them under suspicion by LE and into an interrogation room. The LE won't back down and will not quit until you slam him/her with your rights OR he/she drags a confession out of you.

What if John Q. Citizen says to LE, "I don't want to talk to you any more", or, "Let's do this later", or "I want to go home now." None of these is a "direct" assertion of your right to remain silent. Each of these could leave room for LE to bully and intimidate the average citizen into remaining in the interrogation process and eventually being coerced into confessing, or saying something self incriminating.

As a reference to this idea please see:

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch

This ruling forces the average citizen to become verbally or psychologically (However you wish to phrase it, just not physically) confrontational with a LE officer. I believe this is what most people will by their nature attempt to avoid, and in so doing avoid asserting their rights.

I also presume most LE officers are good people. As such for them to begin questioning someone they probably possess some sort of evidence to make them believe person X is guilty. This of course is not always true, but the good officer is acting in good faith and trying very hard to "get the truth" (read: confession) out of the person on the other side of the table. In the good officers drive for the truth they will be very persistent in keeping person X in the room until they get what they want.

Then we get to the bad LE. They don't give a hoot about innocence or guilt, simply nailing a body to the cross and keeping their percentages up. Or lazy, or any number of character flaws that all human beings have. Combine those flaws with the power to charge someone with a crime, add to that the SCOTUS ruling that all citizens must become more confrontational and this is making the already thin ice of liberty even thinner.

Now I'll show my liberal side a bit. Even stupid or weak or bad or lazy or dumb or ignorant people have rights. I do not believe that the Constitution grants us any rights, but simply promises to protect rights that we already have. It is our duty as the strong, exercising all the power granted us by our Creator to defend those less fortunate than us from any sort of tyranny, whether it be from without or within.

I don't believe anyone here would flinch from helping a person who was physically weak move something too heavy for them to move. We would never consider it a burden to help someone who obviously cannot perform a task due to physical limitations.

Yet, we somehow balk at the notion that we should help those of weak personal character. We fail to see that weakness is not a just a physical limitation, but can be of personality. Shame on us for this.

So, while I agree philosophically with the decision, I find that it places a burden on everyone, and some folks may find this too heavy to bear. And before some may say "too bad for them, they need to stand up for their rights", think about the last time you helped someone physically weak, should you have turned your back and said, "too bad for them, they ought to exercise more?"

Kind Regards,

Doug

PS - Does this help???

I was confused when this was discussed before, and I'm still confused. What is the alternative to having to say you are exercising your right to remain silent? This is an honest question, not a rhetorical question.

If a cop is questioning me, and I don't say anything, when are you guys suggesting he should assume I'm invoking my right to remain silent? One question? Two? Ten? And then after that assumption has been made, he must stop the interrogation?

Please tell me how this works in your ideal.

 

[rambone]

What if John Q. Citizen says to LE, "I don't want to talk to you any more", or, "Let's do this later", or "I want to go home now." None of these is a "direct" assertion of your right to remain silent. Each of these could leave room for LE to bully and intimidate the average citizen into remaining in the interrogation process and eventually being coerced into confessing, or saying something self incriminating.

Doug, you explained this better than I could. Well done.

 

[dross]

Dross,

Kind Regards,

Doug

PS - Does this help???

I agree with everything you wrote, but you still didn't answer my question. What then, is the procedure in the real world? You pointed out all the problems that already existed before this ruling, and that still exist.

What procedure should the police follow? How do they know when someone might confess and they can still ask questions, and when they must stop asking questions?

This is getting frustrating.

 

[Libertarian01]

Dross,

I think we are getting somewhere.

The problem is, as I see it, that before a defense attorney could(?) have argued that when her client told LE, "I want to leave now" or "I don't want to talk to you anymore" that her client was exercising his right to remain silent by communicating a desire to not speak to LE.

Now, LE will have much greater latitude to harangue, intimidate, and bully someone UNTIL that person directly confronts them with, "I am exercising my 5th amendment right to remain silent. Go away." Basically, LE will have, as far as 5th amendment limitations are concerned, NO LIMITS until that protection is directly enunciated. This does not mean that other protections do not continue to apply, but as far as the 5th goes it has been weakened.

This may allow for much more evidence to be gathered under duress by LE as they have Carte blanche to pressure a person UNTIL said person directly exercises their rights. This then limits the interpretation of a right to a more narrow legal viewpoint. In my opinion this is a bad thing, although ironically I don't completely disagree with the courts ruling.

Regards,

Doug

I agree with everything you wrote, but you still didn't answer my question. What then, is the procedure in the real world? You pointed out all the problems that already existed before this ruling, and that still exist.

What procedure should the police follow? How do they know when someone might confess and they can still ask questions, and when they must stop asking questions?

This is getting frustrating.

 

[dross]

Dross,

I think we are getting somewhere.

The problem is, as I see it, that before a defense attorney could(?) have argued that when her client told LE, "I want to leave now" or "I don't want to talk to you anymore" that her client was exercising his right to remain silent by communicating a desire to not speak to LE.

Now, LE will have much greater latitude to harangue, intimidate, and bully someone UNTIL that person directly confronts them with, "I am exercising my 5th amendment right to remain silent. Go away." Basically, LE will have, as far as 5th amendment limitations are concerned, NO LIMITS until that protection is directly enunciated. This does not mean that other protections do not continue to apply, but as far as the 5th goes it has been weakened.

This may allow for much more evidence to be gathered under duress by LE as they have Carte blanche to pressure a person UNTIL said person directly exercises their rights. This then limits the interpretation of a right to a more narrow legal viewpoint. In my opinion this is a bad thing, although ironically I don't completely disagree with the courts ruling.

Regards,

Doug

Okay, finally I see your point. If what you're saying is accurate, I would agree that this ruling weakened the right. If I say, "I don't want to talk to you anymore," and that is not sufficient so as to invoke my fifth amendment rights, I agree, this is a bad ruling. I'm not sure you're correct about this. I do not think you should have to play, "name the amendment" to assert your rights, and if this ruling does that, it's a bad ruling. I don't think it does that, however. It seemed like the issue was whether simply not answering questions was in and of itself an invocation.

Lawyers? A little help here?

 

[Ashkelon]

Best way for questioning to stop is for the subject to clearly state. I am talking no more without my lawyer present.

That is usually the buzz phrase that will stop a seasoned investigator.

Merely saying I don't want to talk to you will not keep an investigator from re approaching the subject again and again at timed intervals.
When a person asserts their right to counsel and the investigator continues with questioning is the mark where a seasoned investigator knows whatever they get from that point forward is subject to being excluded.

Most significant interviews are video and/or audio recorded so merely acting or saying you don't want to talk can give an indifferent impression. Often a seasoned investigator will continue to question the subject about unrelated matters to keep the subject on a thread. Kind of like fishing for large fish on light tackle. Its an art form.

 

[downzero]

Cite me some cases in which coerced confessions have been held admissible, counselor.

There's no need for that. The cases are so numerous that we'd break the website typing out all of the citations. Cops have been known to lie, commit fraud, deceive, and even at times, physically injure people to get confessions. Elsewhere in the world, the problem is much worse.

Police look at our "rights" as a mere game. All they have to do is get whatever paperwork is necessary for you to waive them, or somehow get you to have a "voluntary" conversation with them, and they can get whatever they need to get out of you.

The screwed up part is that you'll get plenty of time to testify in court. If you are so overwhelmed with guilt that you have to tell your story, you'll have plenty of time to tell the jury.

You say that like knowing the Bill of Rights is all you need to know. Sure. The Bill of Rights is one page of paper. But the Supreme Court has issued THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PAGES of decisions to let you know how and when those rights apply. Have you memorized all those pages?

I said it before. I see threads just about everyday where police officers, who are supposedly trained in this, get it wrong. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. I've seen judges get it wrong many times (especially activist judges who base their decisions on political leanings). Hell, the Supreme Court can't even be unanimous on ANYTHING involving our rights.

Do you really think "knowing our rights" is just an easy, cut-and-dried thing? But I will agree that as citizens we have a duty to know and exercise our rights the best we can.

But with the arguing I see going back and forth between regular people, police, etc., even right here on this board, it's not reasonable to expect people to just "know their rights" and assert that it's just one page of paper they have to know.

The statement that the Supreme Court can't be unanimous on anything involving our rights is wrong. Something like 40% of the Court's cases are unanimous. We just don't often talk about those on a forum like this because they aren't, typically, the kind of cases that would interest the general public or the media.

Even Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous.

 

[Rob377]

There's no need for that. The cases are so numerous that we'd break the website typing out all of the citations. Cops have been known to lie, commit fraud, deceive, and even at times, physically injure people to get confessions. Elsewhere in the world, the problem is much worse.

Police look at our "rights" as a mere game. All they have to do is get whatever paperwork is necessary for you to waive them, or somehow get you to have a "voluntary" conversation with them, and they can get whatever they need to get out of you.

The screwed up part is that you'll get plenty of time to testify in court. If you are so overwhelmed with guilt that you have to tell your story, you'll have plenty of time to tell the jury.



The statement that the Supreme Court can't be unanimous on anything involving our rights is wrong. Something like 40% of the Court's cases are unanimous. We just don't often talk about those on a forum like this because they aren't, typically, the kind of cases that would interest the general public or the media.

Even Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous.

Just a few cases, counselor. Don't offer cop-outs, just a few cases in which coerced confessions have been held to be admissible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What pisses me off most is having to speak to invoke the right to silence.
Dumbfacks, the lot of 'em. HERP DERP THEN IT'S NO LONGER SILENCE, NOW IS IT, "JUSTICES"?