Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

[Midwest Lib]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I'm with Redress on this one. He certainly appears to be guilty, but I don't like the standard that this may set. First of all, I could potentially see more "trickery" being used if one is allowed to grill a suspect for hours on end. I don't say this to defend guilty criminals, but to protect the less intelligent innocent suspects. I feel that if even one innocent person is wrongly convicted because of this change that it will be a great blow to our personal liberty.

 

[Redress]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

He wasn't tricked. He was asked if he prayed about killing the boy and he said yes. That isn't a trick.

I did not say he was tricked, I said it was a "trick" question. Instead of directly asking him about the killing, they asked him if he prayed about it.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

All he had to say was four basic words. I want a lawyer. He didn't and he was told anything you say can be used against you. Sucks for him but he has no one to blame really but himself.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.

 

[goldcatt]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.

Miranda has nothing to do with the right to privacy. It is a way of making sure a suspect is aware of his (or her) 5th and 6th Amendment rights when taken into custody. The specific right at issue here is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, aka the right to "remain silent".

 

[the makeout hobo]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Miranda has nothing to do with the right to privacy. It is a way of making sure a suspect is aware of his (or her) 5th and 6th Amendment rights when taken into custody. The specific right at issue here is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, aka the right to "remain silent".

That was a mistype, I meant to say right to remain silence.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.

I mean I guess I could see it that way, but if he really didn't want to say anything ask for a lawyer.

 

[goldcatt]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

All he had to say was four basic words. I want a lawyer. He didn't and he was told anything you say can be used against you. Sucks for him but he has no one to blame really but himself.

If the case were about the right to an attorney, you would be correct. But it's about the right to be "silent". Before this case there were two different standards for invoking each of those rights. A suspect in custody had to specifically ask for an attorney, and then questioning would cease. But in order to invoke silence, all he had to do is stay....silent. Makes sense, right?

Now the Majority in this case has raised the standard for invoking silence. The right still exists, it hasn't been weakened, but now you have to ask for it.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I mean I guess I could see it that way, but if he really didn't want to say anything ask for a lawyer.

Right to an attorney and right to remain silent are two totally different rights. You can exercise one without the other. We're only discussing the right to remain silent, not the right to an attorney

 

[goldcatt]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I mean I guess I could see it that way, but if he really didn't want to say anything ask for a lawyer.

Well sure, that's one way to look at it. But both rights are equally valid. Why should he have to lawyer up, when he can just be silent?

 

[Moon]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Good ruling. Once a person in police custody is read their rights, it's up to them whether or not they choose to invoke them. This person chose not to.

 

[pragmatic]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Good ruling. Once a person in police custody is read their rights, it's up to them whether or not they choose to invoke them. This person chose not to.

Read down through the thread which conveniently ended up with your post. Personally struggling to figure out where exactly there are any grounds for outrage/concern here. The obligation of the police is to read the Miranda rights (before any statements by the perp can be used in court against him). As long as the rights were appropriately administered the police have fulfilled their obligation.

Never heard of any legal constraint placed on LEOs that they need to be silent....



.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Well sure, that's one way to look at it. But both rights are equally valid. Why should he have to lawyer up, when he can just be silent?

But if they keep on trying to get him to talk if he asked for a lawyer it would stop. So he really can't blame the cops for them continuing to ask him questions when if he would have asked for a lawyer the questioning would have stopped.

 

[goldcatt]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

But if they keep on trying to get him to talk if he asked for a lawyer it would stop. So he really can't blame the cops for them continuing to ask him questions when if he would have asked for a lawyer the questioning would have stopped.

If he invokes his right to silence, the questioning is also supposed to stop. The problem for law enforcement is, how do you know for sure the guy invoked his right to silence? There is no sign to tell them emphatically to stop questioning. In that way having to ask is a good thing. It puts everybody on the same page.

On the other hand, when a suspect is read the Miranda rights it merely says he has the "right to remain silent". Logically, there is no way a suspect who doesn't seek out and read Supreme Court rulings is going to equate the right to remain silent with having to speak up and ask for silence. In that way, it's not a good thing.

Easily solved IMO, simply change the Miranda warnings so they more or less match the new rule. Then law enforcement gets their bright(er) line and suspects still get a clear picture of their rights and how to invoke them.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

If he invokes his right to silence, the questioning is also supposed to stop. The problem for law enforcement is, how do you know for sure the guy invoked his right to silence? There is no sign to tell them emphatically to stop questioning. In that way having to ask is a good thing. It puts everybody on the same page.

On the other hand, when a suspect is read the Miranda rights it merely says he has the "right to remain silent". Logically, there is no way a suspect who doesn't seek out and read Supreme Court rulings is going to equate the right to remain silent with having to speak up and ask for silence. In that way, it's not a good thing.

Easily solved IMO, simply change the Miranda warnings so they more or less match the new rule. Then law enforcement gets their bright(er) line and suspects still get a clear picture of their rights and how to invoke them.

I agree with majority of what you said. The right to remain silent is sort of a blurred thing because unless the suspect says I am not answering any more questions then the police don't know. And that is why I mention how I thought he should have called for a lawyer. I know they are two different rights, but when a suspect calls for a lawyer he is also saying I am not speaking anymore until the lawyer gets here and in my mind that is a way of showing his/her right to remain silent.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.

He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.

Exactly. Case closed IMO. That's all that needs saying.

 

[pragmatic]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.

Is that written somewhere? Never really thought about it before. After a suspect has been read his Miranda rights he certainly isn't required to respond to a question. But is there some legal dictate that the cops have to stop talking to him? Be curious to see how that is stated in the law.....



.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Is that written somewhere? Never really thought about it before. After a suspect has been read his Miranda rights he certainly isn't required to respond to a question. But is there some legal dictate that the cops have to stop talking to him? Be curious to see how that is stated in the law.....



.

From what I gather it came from this ruling:

In an earlier decision, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981), the Court had held that such a waiver must be "knowing and intelligent." Furthermore, the Court had made clear in Edwards that police officers must immediately stop questioning a suspect who clearly asserts the right to have legal counsel present during the interrogation.

Here is the link if you want to read the entire article. Custodial Interrogation - The Future Of Miranda, Further Readings

 

[pragmatic]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

From what I gather it came from this ruling:



Here is the link if you want to read the entire article. Custodial Interrogation - The Future Of Miranda, Further Readings

Just scanning through Wiki (whatever that's worth) it appears that different states have notably different "flavors" of Miranda warnings. And how they are applied....


.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Just scanning through Wiki (whatever that's worth) it appears that different states have notably different "flavors" of Miranda warnings. And how they are applied....


.

I don't know how I feel about that then. I mean I support state rights, but it seems like something like Miranda Rights should be set on a federal level. But that is still interesting. I am going to look and see if I can find any law articles about that because it has peaked my interest.

 

[Vader]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.

Still ... what the police did was coercion. The police really are not supposed to be coercing statements out of people. Clearly, the police had a weak case and needed the suspect to confess.

I would have told them straight out ... Get me a lawyer. Then I would have sought an IA investigation into the cops over their actions.

 

[pragmatic]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I don't know how I feel about that then. I mean I support state rights, but it seems like something like Miranda Rights should be set on a federal level. But that is still interesting. I am going to look and see if I can find any law articles about that because it has peaked my interest.

Here is an interesting paragraph from the link that you provided (near the bottom)

"Edwards applied only when a suspect clearly asserted the right to have counsel present; it did not provide guidance to officers when a suspect made an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel. Addressing that situation, some jurisdictions had held that any mention of counsel, no matter how ambiguous, required that questioning cease. Other courts had attempted to define a threshold standard of clarity, under which comments that fell below the required clarity did not invoke the RIGHT TO COUNSEL. Still other jurisdictions had ruled that questioning must cease upon any mention of counsel, but officers were permitted to ask further, narrow questions to clarify whether the suspect desired an attorney. In Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue, holding that officers are not required to cease questioning if a suspect makes an ambiguous request for counsel. Questioning may continue until the suspect makes an "unambiguous" request for an attorney. Furthermore, the Court held, police officers have no duty to seek clarification of an ambiguous request."


How's that for being all over the board....!!!



.

 

[soccerboy22]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Here is an interesting paragraph from the link that you provided (near the bottom)

"Edwards applied only when a suspect clearly asserted the right to have counsel present; it did not provide guidance to officers when a suspect made an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel. Addressing that situation, some jurisdictions had held that any mention of counsel, no matter how ambiguous, required that questioning cease. Other courts had attempted to define a threshold standard of clarity, under which comments that fell below the required clarity did not invoke the RIGHT TO COUNSEL. Still other jurisdictions had ruled that questioning must cease upon any mention of counsel, but officers were permitted to ask further, narrow questions to clarify whether the suspect desired an attorney. In Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue, holding that officers are not required to cease questioning if a suspect makes an ambiguous request for counsel. Questioning may continue until the suspect makes an "unambiguous" request for an attorney. Furthermore, the Court held, police officers have no duty to seek clarification of an ambiguous request."


How's that for being all over the board....!!!



.

I know it is kind of stupid in all honesty. So if the Supreme Court is going to address the Miranda Rights I think they should add that if you call for an attorney then the questioning stops, but you have to clearly say you want an attorney. You also don't have to talk to the officers, but you have to specifically say you aren't going to talk to them knowing you may be held for I think 48 hours until they are forced to let you go if no arrest is made. I mean they maybe in there, I have never had the Miranda Rights read to me and I haven't read them in while, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to clearly state what a suspect has to do for the questioning to stop. This way both cops and suspects will know exactly what needs to be said so something like this case will not happen again.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Why do people keep on talking about lawyers? That is a different right that has nothing to do with this. A suspect has a right to an attorney. A suspect has a right to remain silent. These are two completely separate rights and you can invoke one without the other. For whatever reason this suspect chose not to ask for a lawyer. That is his choice. It has no bearing, however, on whether he may choose to remain silent or not.

As to the case itself... He went two entire hours without answering questions, that clearly to me seems to be that he decided to remain silent. Nowhere in the Miranda rights does it say you have to officially say you're keeping silent. If you don't talk for that long a period, it should be obvious. The police were coercing this man, plain and simple. I don't see how you could take hours worth of silence as anything other than invocation of that right.