Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have the right to remain silent while being waterboarded.
That's not the land of the free and the home of the brave I signed on for.
The SCOTUS is nuts.
Quite frankly, I see that as a major plus for the suspects, 'cuz once they opt to STFU, the police can't KEEP ON with some sort of taunting inquisition, trying to confuse the person into a slip of the lip.
You have the right to remain silent while being waterboarded.
That's not the land of the free and the home of the brave I signed on for.
The SCOTUS is nuts.
As I read this decision, what you say can no longer be done seems to me to be PRECISELY what the police now CAN do.
In a span of 12 years, the SC overturned themselves.
In 1949, it was ruled the Exclusionary rule was NOT applicable to the states.
In 1961, they overturned themselves.
The Court, depending on the makeup, will rule whatever it feels, stare decisis or not.
As I read this decision, what you say can no longer be done seems to me to be PRECISELY what the police now CAN do.
As I read this decision, what the police can do now might not be what the police could do then, but what you say can be done could be precisely what police wanted to do to begin with.
As I read this decision, what you say can no longer be done seems to me to be PRECISELY what the police now CAN do.
As I read this decision, what the police can do now might not be what the police could do then, but what you say can be done could be precisely what police wanted to do to begin with.
Don't screw with me, or you KNOW who I'll call in . . .
As I read this decision, what the police can do now might not be what the police could do then, but what you say can be done could be precisely what police wanted to do to begin with.
Don't screw with me, or you KNOW who I'll call in . . .
...
Now, it does.
Quite frankly, I see that as a major plus for the suspects, 'cuz once they opt to STFU, the police can't KEEP ON with some sort of taunting inquisition, trying to confuse the person into a slip of the lip.
Actually, this is NOT a plus for suspects because, formerly, if they said nothing, the cops had to give up. Now, if they say nothing, the cops can keep after them and keep after them until they either invoke or (more likely) start talking.
The more opportunity the police have to lie to the suspects by telling them how they are going to "help" them if only they will tell them "their side of the story," or by threatening them with "ruse" evidence, i.e., evidence they don't have, the greater the chance that the suspect will crack and talk.
As I read this decision, what you say can no longer be done seems to me to be PRECISELY what the police now CAN do whenever the suspect fails to articulate his right to remain silent. Formerly, it didn't matter whether the suspect said he wanted to remain silent or merely remained silent without saying anything. Now, it does.
In a span of 12 years, the SC overturned themselves.
In 1949, it was ruled the Exclusionary rule was NOT applicable to the states.
In 1961, they overturned themselves.
The Court, depending on the makeup, will rule whatever it feels, stare decisis or not.
This appears to be one of the major differences between conservatives and liberals. I think it was Justice Frankfurter who said that the law of the land is whatever the Supreme Court says it is (or something like that).
Liberals say: "Damn right. That's the way it should be. The Constitution is an evolving document that should change with, and adapt to, the times." Conservatives say: "Activism!"
Times change. Situations change. More importantly (for the politically greedy and ambitious), the mood of the public changes. Most Constitutional questions can go one way or another. Who's to say what's right? Answer: The Supremes.
Quite frankly, I see that as a major plus for the suspects, 'cuz once they opt to STFU, the police can't KEEP ON with some sort of taunting inquisition, trying to confuse the person into a slip of the lip.
Actually, this is NOT a plus for suspects because, formerly, if they said nothing, the cops had to give up. Now, if they say nothing, the cops can keep after them and keep after them until they either invoke or (more likely) start talking.
The more opportunity the police have to lie to the suspects by telling them how they are going to "help" them if only they will tell them "their side of the story," or by threatening them with "ruse" evidence, i.e., evidence they don't have, the greater the chance that the suspect will crack and talk.
As I read this decision, what you say can no longer be done seems to me to be PRECISELY what the police now CAN do whenever the suspect fails to articulate his right to remain silent. Formerly, it didn't matter whether the suspect said he wanted to remain silent or merely remained silent without saying anything. Now, it does.
Sorry it seems to me you have an idealized vision of what things used to be like. It was never as clear as you pretend it to be unless the arrestee actually said they wished to exercise their right to remain silent and then did it.
Prior to this ruling, the police had to cease interrogation if the defendant EITHER remained silent without announcing his intention to do so (i.e., he just sits there and says nothing) OR if the defendant announced his intention not to want to talk to the police.
Now, the police only have to cease interrogation in the latter case - where the defendant invokes his right to silence in an affirmative manner. Now, if the defendant merely sits there, saying nothing, the police can keep hammering on him until he either invokes or talks. I don't view this as a step forward for suspect's rights under the Miranda decision.
This provides a bright line rule and is consistent with the court's other decision on right to counsel under Miranda. I think getting those in sync is a good thing. I also think it's a good thing to have a bright line for both the arrestee and the police.
The former situation provided just as much of a bright line rule as the present one. The present one is just allows more room for the police to get confessions out of suspects.
They had the guy in the room for hours and he refused to talk. If the cops didn't realize he was using his right to remain silent then they're fucking morons who shouldn't be on the force.
They were looking for a loophole to continue grilling the guy and now they have one.
Who wants to bet they'll conveniently forget to tell suspects they have to assert their right to remain silent?
Good thing you didn't bother to read the case. He murdered, fled the state and changed his identity. But the poor man had to sit in a room for "hours!"
...
Now, it does.
Once the actual criminals figure this new rule out, I don't believe it will take very long, at all, for them to pass the info along to their cohorts,
and BEFORE, if the person just sat there, the police WERE allowed to continue to browbeat and deceive them.
NOW, all the person has to say is "I choose to remain silent," and the police MUST cease and desist in the interrogation.
See how that could work FOR the suspect? And work a LOT better than just sitting there, taking whatever abuse the police taunt them with?
Of course, I'm thinking of it from both sides of the "suspect" coin ~ heads, guilty, as well as tails, INNOCENT.
The former situation provided just as much of a bright line rule as the present one. The present one is just allows more room for the police to get confessions out of suspects.
BS. If that is true, then where does the former 'bright line' exist? 5 minutes of silence? 10? 20? You don't know, that's where the line is and that is what leads to the BS confusion and controversy we see here. It is simple, they have changed ambiguous fuzzy lines to definite clear lines, a point that I have been trying to point out for pages that has largely been ignored. The same post comes over and over again.....The former situation provided just as much of a bright line rule as the present one. The present one is just allows more room for the police to get confessions out of suspects.
...without any real evidence as to where this is happening. All the same right apply, the right to remain silent just has been given a definite, definable and unmistakable starting point. There should be no more cases like this one where there is a question as to whether or not the suspect has invoked his or her right (or at least far fewer).I don't see this as a reversal of Miranda, but I do see it as a dangerous erosion. It certainly adds to the slippery slope argument.
Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???
Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent
By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago
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.
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 counter-intuitively, 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."
Again, BS. He did NOT sit in a room silent for hours. He expressed limited communication, some yes and no answers and the like. THAT IS NOT SILENCE. That is the problem here. Now we are wasting time in court wondering if the spurts of silence count precisely because the old Miranda method was so damn ambiguous. Now it is not, there is a clear delineation of where your right to remain silent is evoked and that can even be within seconds of the questioning....
Now, it does.
Once the actual criminals figure this new rule out, I don't believe it will take very long, at all, for them to pass the info along to their cohorts,
and BEFORE, if the person just sat there, the police WERE allowed to continue to browbeat and deceive them.
NOW, all the person has to say is "I choose to remain silent," and the police MUST cease and desist in the interrogation.
See how that could work FOR the suspect? And work a LOT better than just sitting there, taking whatever abuse the police taunt them with?
Of course, I'm thinking of it from both sides of the "suspect" coin ~ heads, guilty, as well as tails, INNOCENT.
Look at the case this was based on. The guy sat in a room for hours and didn't talk, and yet the cops were somehow clueless enough to not figure out he was invoking the right to remain silent.
And now those fuckers have the law behind them.
