SCOTUS Limits Miranda “Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,”

[saracat]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-01/silence-right-must-be-invoked-explicitly-court-says-update1-.html

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Criminal suspects must explicitly invoke their right to remain silent to force police to stop questioning, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The 5-4 decision upholds the Michigan murder conviction of a man who sat silent throughout most of a three-hour interrogation by police. The ruling blunts the force of the landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision, which required police to inform suspects of their rights.

“A requirement of an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights results in an objective inquiry that avoids difficulties of proof and provides guidance to officers on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The ruling divided the court along what have become familiar lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining Kennedy in the majority.

“Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak.”

[LakeSamish706]

1. Our rights are rapidly disappearing and yet most of us sit silent and take it. n/t

[saracat]

6. It is beyond depressing.

[The Doctor.]

39. Oh? So you want CRIMINALS to have more rights?

After all; If the police arrest you, you must already be guilty!

:eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Another nail in the coffin...GAWD!!

I am conflicted about this, but I cannot help but silently, fervently hope that President Obama gets to replace one of the five majority voters in this decision...very soon.

[Shining Jack]

3. And another right bites the dust.

Recommended.

[WillyT]

4. K & R !!!

:kick:

[gateley]

5. Next: Changing the name of United States of America. What's become of us? nt

[cognoscere]

36. Well...for some time now I've looked at the U S of A

as standing for "Unlimited Supply of Assholes" Actually, now that I think about it, it's been since the SCROTUS, or the five conservative turds on it, installed Bush as president.

[Kat45]

7. All I can say is "wow.' And

:wtf:

[RandomThoughts]

8. The real problem with that situation.

Is using information selectively.

The person being questioned for over 2 hours, hundreds of questions, he remains silent maybe because he knows they are trying to frame him for something he did not do, maybe because he was guilty of that crime.

Then after 100s of questions he hears the police say "do you pray to God", and does not hear the rest of the comment, and he says yes.

And that one vocal comment, is taken as an admission of guilt, when it might not have been, while him not answering 100s of questions is ignored.



There is a thing about interrogations, they are bias, and because of that bias, law should protect people.


Miranda should require the waving of that right, not the assumption it is waved until invoked.

So a person should have that right, until vocally affirming they wave that right.

[Champion Jack]

9. Unbelievable....

[waiting for hope]

10. Unbelievable ...

What's next? I'm not surprised by anything these days.

K&R

[saracat]

11. Someone unrecced this WTF? There was a time this would have been the most important story on DU!

All I can say is so far I am grateful to Sotomayer, but we need a majority on this court. And for those that do not care, I am very scared and disgusted by that kind of thinking.

[Echo In Light]

26. Cons approve of increased police state measures

[Horse with no Name]

28. I miss those days

Howdy Saracat!

[cornermouse]

12. k & r

[bertman]

13. This ruling fits right in with the latest Imperial decree that American citizens can be

assassinated without the right to a fair trial.

Another very sad step toward the oblivion of tyranny.

Rec.

[safeinOhio]

14. You have the right to remain silent

anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.

I've always loved how cops roll their eyes when anyone brings up their Constitutional rights. Then they always plead the 5th when they are on trial.

[laughingliberal]

15. K & R nt

[amborin]

16. K&R

[Nailzberg]

17. I'm not sure if it helps or hurts.

I'm no lawyer, and don't claim to be a legal expert. But I have taken a few law classes, and wonder if this could actually strengthen Miranda in the long haul. And I only offer this as discussion, as I don't know how to feel about this yet, I just like logic puzzles. I'd love to hear what any DU legal scholars think of this argument:

Basically, as Miranda stood before this decision, you didn't have to answer any questions, and the police had to inform you of that at arrest. But if you just stay silent, cops still go on those marathon interrogations in hopes of breaking you down. That's how this case reached the Supreme Court. A suspect finally broke down, and his attorney wanted the testimony thrown out.

Now, it would seem, if you verbally inform the police you wish to remain silent, anything you say after informing the police you are invoking your Miranda rights could be argued inadmissible, (unless the judge is a right wing wackjob, then anything goes).

On the flipside, there is a good point made that language barriers or lack of KNOWING you must verbally invoke your right to remain silent in order to remain silent, is problematic. So for this to strengthen Miranda, the warning needs to be expanded to inform arrestees that they must verbally invoke their right to remain silent. Now, I doubt prosecutors offices would revisit the wording of the Miranda Warning immediately as it impedes the ability of police to interrogate.

It would take a case where a suspect verbally invokes his rights, and the police continue questioning. With this Supreme Court decision as precedent, a decent defense attorney could cite it and get anything said after invoking Miranda deemed inadmissible. Any DU legal scholars out there?

[TorchTheWitch]

22. I think it absolutely helps suspects

Before this ruling, to invoke your right to remain silent, you just don't answer any questions... it doesn't stop the police from questioning you nor does it prevent anything you do say from being used against you. The Miranda rule is pretty explicit on this... "You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say can and will be used against you." In the case before the court, the suspect did not invoke his right to remain silent because he did answer many of the questions put to him, and therefore, what he did say was legally used against him.

With the new court ruling, if you verbally invoke your right to remain silent, anything you do say after that can now be thrown out whereas it would not have before. This is definitely an improvement for suspects.

I'm not seeing how anyone finds this ruling as some sort of loss of suspect rights... if anything, they've been improved by the ruling.

[liberation]

31. Please tell me I am missing the sarcasm in your post...

[MrScorpio]

18. So you have to break your silence in order to invoke your right to remain silent?

What's wrong with this picture?

[Caliman73]

19. I agree with Sotomayor

My lay understanding of Miranda was that the rights exist regardless of whether you were even informed of them. I guess that is naive because I am sure the police could just lie about informing the arrested individual and no one would be the wiser unless the arrested individual was well aware and able to invoke or simply ask for a lawyer. I think this ruling is ridiculous and I would think that it would go against the 5th Amendment, but that is just me and I am no legal scholar.

[sandbar]

20. I can not see anything good about this.

[freddie mertz]

21. One by one, ruling by ruling, our rights keep slipping away.

And no one gives a crap.

[marmar]

23. The Felonious Five want to dismantle even the illusion of democracy.....

..... because that's all that's left in this country anyway.

[femrap]

24. Sotomayor is soooooooo

right...it's total inane. So now the cops say 'You have the right to be silent, but you gotta tell us that.'

I think it just proves how fucking stupid this nation has become. The lawyers are eating us alive.

[KamaAina]

25. How do you say "I invoke my right to remain silent" in American Sign Language?

'cause I can't think of any other way to do so while, y'know, remaining silent. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

27. K&R. One step closer to the abyss.

[Spheric]

29. Insane ruling that a right must be asserted to exist. If you are unaware of it, it doesn't exist.

By this reasoning, gun owners should be required to assert that they are a member of a well-formed militia in order to possess one.

Bet you won't see that ruling coming out of these disgusting morons.

[NYC_SKP]

30. K&R and Thanks, saracat.

The current court membership is the scariest part of the past administrations' legacy of failure to represent us and to secure and maintain our basic rights.

:thumbsup:

[Jefferson23]

32. Another tragic decision...pathetic. n/t

[ananda]

33. Thank you, Sonia Sotomayor.

Those were my thoughts exactly.

[bora13]

34. Starting now

I will remain silent starting.....NOW. No, wait, OK I will remain silent in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 NOW.

[onehandle]

35. Corporations are people. People are criminals. Guns are God.

Thanks, Ralph.

[sakabatou]

37. Good god...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

38. We should start teaching our children their rights...

in case they're ever arrested.