http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-06-01-supreme-court-miranda-rights_N.htm?csp=hf

Seems that the SCOTUS has issued a ruling relevant to the 1966 Miranda ruling.

The court has ruled that a suspect has to explicitly state that he waives his right to be silent before authorities are cmpelled to stop interrogation.  The case at hand involved a perp who was read his rights, and then kept silent.  He did not state a refusal to answer questions, he simply kept his mouth shut.  But then somewhere along the line he decided to answer some questions and ended up being sent to the pokey for life (no parole) for snuffing some dude.

We are already hearing a huge outcry about the decision and how it "rolls back the Miranda ruling".  I say poppycock.  If I read the ruling correctly, all the perp has to do is to state (words to the effect) "I am invoking my right to remain silent" and then interrogation must stop.  Simply saying nothing (the 'pregnant pause') and assuming that the interrogators will assume that one is formally invoking silence is no longer an acceptable invocation.

I say the ruling is much ado about nothing.  Perps who have invoked the right to remain silent often recant it and start talking with the cops, so why should that be any different than the ones who don't explicitly invoke the right?

Note that the ruling does not change the requirement to read a perp the Miranda Warning upon arrest.

I don't like the ruling because the right-wingers would like nothing better than to do away with Miranda altogether.  As usual, this ruling will have a disproportionate effect on less-educated suspects, and more vulnerable ones.  I agree with the dissent that the police should not be allowed to hector suspects for hours and days.  We have ways of making you talk!  No, no, if a suspect gives a reasonable signal that he does not want to answer questions, I think that be considered an invocation of Miranda rights.  The suspect should not have to say, "I invoke my rights to remain silent."

However in the case cited:

Two hours and 45 minutes later, an officer asked, "Do you believe in God?" Thompkins said yes. The officer then asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins said "Yes."

Thompkins was one dumb sonofabitch. 
::)

Ain't no law against dumb.

Besides, if he had said 'I ain't talkin, get me a lawyer' then he would not have continued to be interrogated.

Ain't no law against dumb.

Besides, if he had said 'I ain't talkin, get me a lawyer' then he would not have continued to be interrogated.


If Thompkins did the job, then good on the cops for getting him to open his mouth.  If he didn't actually do it, and the cops got him to admit to a crime he didn't commit, that's a problem.  Cops will do that.

However, I think Thompkins did it.  Even if the cops got a false confession under interrogation, the truth would have come out once he got his court-appointed lawyer.

One hopes.
:-\\

Yah lets play good cop/bad cop with a rubber hose.

Yah lets play good cop/bad cop with a rubber hose.


Nah, they ain't gonna hurt ya.  We just wanna help you, but we can't help you unless you help us.  We're you're buddies.
;)

Yah lets play good cop/bad cop with a rubber hose.


Rubber hoses went out of style a while ago. They leave marks.

Today the persuader of choice is one of those plastic grocery bags. "Oops, sorry... I misplaced this bag around your head until you confessed to the Garfield assassination".

Rubber hoses went out of style a while ago. They leave marks.

Today the persuader of choice is one of those plastic grocery bags. "Oops, sorry... I misplaced this bag around your head until you confessed to the Garfield assassination".



edited because people have looked at that horrible picture of Garfield for long enough.

Ain't no law against dumb.

Besides, if he had said 'I ain't talkin, get me a lawyer' then he would not have continued to be interrogated.


One nitpicky point: he almost certainly would not have continued to be interrogated until a while later.  That's a procedural (because cops don't like to risk getting sued by people who have decent odds of winning) reality, not an actual legal requirement.

But other than that, yeah, the guy was a dumbass.  He had the right to remain silent, and he waived it when he answered questions with "yes" or "no".

To clarify a few points:

1) "To remain silent" doesn't mean "to keep your mouth physically shut".  It means "to not answer questions presented during interrogation".  You can say "I want a lawyer", or "I will not answer any questions without counsel present", without waiving your right to remain silent.  You always could, and this ruling doesn't change that.

2) The thing that has changed is that you have to make your intentions abso-freaking-lutely clear.  Sitting in the chair, mute, until the cops get bored and walk away, isn't going to cut it.  You have to speak up and actually say something like "I want a lawyer", "I demand a lawyer", or "I will not answer any questions until I have a lawyer".  (Not something wishy-washy like "I think I might need a lawyer", "I think I want a lawyer now", and especially not "Don't I need a lawyer before I can answer this?")

3) Can the cops keep asking you questions after you've demanded legal counsel?  Of course they can.  You might have changed your mind overnight in the drunk tank.  You might have changed your mind after an hour in holding.  You might have changed your mind in the 30 seconds since they asked their last question.  You might have changed your mind after you fell down the stairs.

Now that we've established that they can, the important question is will the cops keep asking you questions after you've demanded legal counsel?  Well, that depends.  Somewhere on that continuum between "overnight in the drunk tank" (whereupon you might reasonably have changed your mind about your need for legal representation), and "immediately after falling down the stairs" (whereupon you might reasonably be able, as long as any security systems didn't mysteriously fail to record the six cops who didn't quite catch you in time before your fall, to sue for a few hundred grand, and win), lies the point at which a reasonable person (a juror) will decide that you did, or did not, waive your Miranda rights by answering further questioning.

4) Since you don't know if (or when) they'll come back with another round of interrogation, keep repeating it in your head.  A competent interrogator will do lots of things (and they're allowed to lie to you) to get you to talk, so just keep repeating it like a mantra: No interrogation without legal representation.  As long as the crime of which you're suspected isn't on the list of things for which not-torture-when-we-do-it iis authorized, you'll get a lawyer.  Competent cops recognize when a suspect is aware of their rights, and they move to easier prey.

5) To summarize my (I Am Not A Lawyer) layman's take on this case:  The guy waived his rights by answering further questioning.  Now that it's been upheld by the Supreme Court, it's official - you aren't assumed to be invoking those rights by just zipping your lips.  You have to explicitly invoke them by demanding legal counsel.  

And for anyone who's new around here:

Don't Talk To The Police (part 1)
Don't Talk To The Police (part 2)

Most cops are good cops.  But if you're under arrest, or even under investigation, even a good cop isn't your friend.  When they try to get suspects to talk, they're just doing their jobs.  Whether you're guilty (and especially if you're innocent), this SCOTUS ruling means you need to just be doing your job.

I've seen those videos. 

The problem is cops will do illegal strong-arming techniques, and then it's up to you to prove it in court. 

Cops are intimidating.  They can get you to waive all kinds of rights at the scene before you can catch your nerves.  You'll say stuff you think will absolve you, and they'll just use it against you. 

Hence my motto:

What do you say to a cop?
As little as possible.

Also, if they decide to arrest you, don't put up a big stink.  It'll only make things worse.  If the cops decide you're going downtown, that's where you're going.  Talk about it with your lawyer later.

To clarify a few points:

2) The thing that has changed is that you have to make your intentions abso-freaking-lutely clear.  Sitting in the chair, mute, until the cops get bored and walk away, isn't going to cut it.  You have to speak up and actually say something like "I want a lawyer", "I demand a lawyer", or "I will not answer any questions until I have a lawyer".  (Not something wishy-washy like "I think I might need a lawyer", "I think I want a lawyer now", and especially not "Don't I need a lawyer before I can answer this?")



Absolutamundo...

In 1994, the SCOTUS, in an odd unanimous 9-0 decision in the case Davis vs United States ruled that "...the suspect must unambiguously request counsel."  The recent decision was essentially based upon the Davis decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1949.ZO.html

Liberalism is dead.

Personally, I approve of making it easier to interrogate stupid criminals.

Personally, I approve of making it easier to interrogate stupid criminals.


The smart criminals are the problem.  The dumb criminals make dumb mistakes.  The smart criminal doesn't get caught, so he doesn't have to worry.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/sqcold.gif