Supreme Court says you must speak up to remain silent

[NiteTiger]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1993580,00.html?xid=rss-topstories-cnnpartner

When is the right to remain silent not a right to remain silent? When you have to speak in order to claim it.

That is the bizarre paradox that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, enshrined in the Constitution on Monday.

Van Thompkins, a criminal suspect, was not interested in talking to the police, and he never affirmatively waived his right to remain silent. But the court ruled that by not saying clearly that he was exercising his right to remain silent he had in fact forfeited the right — and that a one-word answer he gave late in the questioning could be used against him.

The ruling flies in the face of the court's longstanding insistence that a suspect can only waive his rights by affirmatively doing so. The majority said it was standing by Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark 1966 decision that revolutionized police interrogations. But in fact, the court created yet another gaping hole in the Miranda doctrine — this one backed by what can be described as Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

Thompkins was arrested in connection with a fatal shooting that occurred outside of a mall in Michigan in 2000. The police questioned him for close to three hours, but he remained almost completely silent, offering just a few one-word answers. Toward the end, an officer asked Thompkins if he had prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting and he said "Yes."

Prosecutors used the answer to convict Thompkins of murder, although his lawyers insisted that it violated his right against self-incrimination. Under Miranda, a suspect's statements to the police could only be used if he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent. Thompkins never did that. A federal appeals court agreed with his lawyers and threw out the conviction.

The Supreme Court reinstated Thompkins' conviction. If he wanted to invoke his right to remain silent, Justice Anthony Kennedy indicated for the majority, he should have spoken up about it. That conclusion "turns Miranda upside down," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the four dissenters.

Before Miranda, police had enormous freedom to coerce confessions out of suspects — whether they had committed the crimes they were being questioned about or not. Could police interrogate someone for 40 hours over several days to wring out a confession? Yes, the court ruled in 1941, they could.

Miranda rewrote the rulebook. Criminal suspects had to be informed of their right to remain silent and of the fact that — as the now-famous "Miranda warning" put it — anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Police and prosecutors reacted with outrage, warning that Miranda would prevent them from solving crimes and putting away criminals. Politicians attacked the court for siding with criminals over the forces of law-and-order.

But then a funny thing happened. "Miranda warnings" became a staple of television shows and movies. Americans got used to them — and found that they liked them. People began to see the Miranda ruling not as a sop to criminals, but as a proud reminder that we are a nation in which even the police must play by the rules.

For years, conservatives continued to attack the Miranda decision, and to hold out hope that it would be reversed. In 2000, it seemed like it might finally happen — the court had a case that posed a direct challenge to Miranda, and it had a five-member conservative majority. But in the end, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, leader of the conservative bloc, wrote an opinion for a 7-2 majority reaffirming Miranda. "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice," he wrote, "to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."

Instead of overruling Miranda, the conservative Justices have now done something they are doing to many landmark progressive decisions — quietly chipping away to the point that they have little power left.

The court has ruled that although statements obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used by prosecutors in their direct case, they can be used to impeach a defendant who testifies differently at trial. The court also created a "public safety" exception, by which police can question suspects without reading them their Miranda rights if there is an imminent danger — an exception law enforcement is reportedly using a great deal in terrorism cases, including the recent Times Square bombing attempt.

With this week's ruling, however, the chipping away reaches a new level — and an important chunk of Miranda has fallen away. The heavy burden that the police once had to show that someone had waived his or her Miranda rights is now significantly reduced.

The Buddhists are known for their koans, enigmatic questions and statements that cannot be readily understood by rational thinking — such as "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

This week, the Supreme Court imported this sort of beyond-rational thinking into constitutional law. We now have a right to remain silent that can only be exercised by speaking up.

Heads up guys

 

[Greenwich Pope]

Interesting, and quite the contradiction.

You have THE RIGHT to remain silent, so by doing so, one would think they are most certainly NOT waiving it.

*sigh*

 

[kmk420kali]

Come on guys...let's keep this in context--

Thompkins was arrested in connection with a fatal shooting that occurred outside of a mall in Michigan in 2000. The police questioned him for close to three hours, but he remained almost completely silent, offering just a few one-word answers. Toward the end, an officer asked Thompkins if he had prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting and he said "Yes."

The guy did not stay silent...he answered their questions--
If you stay silent, this does not even come into play--
BTW...the guy DID kill someone...and was simply grasping at straws with his appeal--

 

[NiteTiger]

What's being taken out of context?

A change to Miranda Rules is always worth taking note.

In this case, it's good to know that you do have to actively assert your rights, instead of just being non-responsive. Also, had he actively asserted his right, the questioning would have had to stop.

So, if he had said "I assert my right not to answer questions at this time", the questioning would have had to stop. The opportunity for cops asking the questions he later responded to would not have been there.

Sure, it was a an attorney grasping at straws in a murder case, but that doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS has altered the rules on Miranda.

And as I said, any change is worth taking note of.

 

[kmk420kali]

What's being taken out of context?

A change to Miranda Rules is always worth taking note.

In this case, it's good to know that you do have to actively assert your rights, instead of just being non-responsive. Also, had he actively asserted his right, the questioning would have had to stop.

So, if he had said "I assert my right not to answer questions at this time", the questioning would have had to stop. The opportunity for cops asking the questions he later responded to would not have been there.

Sure, it was a an attorney grasping at straws in a murder case, but that doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS has altered the rules on Miranda.

And as I said, any change is worth taking note of.

I agree that it is noteworthy...I just don't see it as a blow to our Constitutional Rights--
If you assert your Rights by saying you don't want to answer any questions...that does not mean they have to stop asking--
If you simply do not open your mouth...you are still asserting your Right...actually, the only way you can give up that Right...is to answer their question(s)--

 

[Greenwich Pope]

I agree that it is noteworthy...I just don't see it as a blow to our Constitutional Rights--
If you assert your Rights by saying you don't want to answer any questions...that does not mean they have to stop asking--
If you simply do not open your mouth...you are still asserting your Right...actually, the only way you can give up that Right...is to answer their question(s)--

You're right, it technically is not an altering to the Constitutional right to miranda, but it is a reversal to what has been previously held by the court.

 

[kmk420kali]

You're right, it technically is not an altering to the Constitutional right to miranda, but it is a reversal to what has been previously held by the court.

I don't think it is so much a reversal, as it is a rewording so that further appeals cannot be made on this same point--
You have always had the Right to STFU...the ONLY way you can give up that Right, is to answer their questions--
Trust me, I am not a fan of losing Rights...I just don't see this as anything except clarification, in order not to let a Murderer go free--

 

[SuperSizeMe]

Here's the thing, K.

The guy DID STFU, he just never acknowledged his RIGHT to remain silent, therefore it was seen as waiving that right and a ONE WORD answer was used against him.

Forget what the case is about, if it happens once, well...you know how that goes.

Peace homie

 

[VenturaHwy]

Come on guys...let's keep this in context--



The guy did not stay silent...he answered their questions--
If you stay silent, this does not even come into play--
BTW...the guy DID kill someone...and was simply grasping at straws with his appeal--

OK, so the guy wasn't very smart not to tell the cops he wanted to talk to his lawyer etc., but the laws should protect the ignorant also...

"Toward the end, an officer asked Thompkins if he had prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting and he said "Yes.""

Now can you be certain that another officer didn't also ask him if he wanted a glass of water or any other question he may have been responding to? Of course not, so a man was convicted with one word? I find that amazing.....


and......

if they had it on tape can anyone tell me if another cop had raised his water bottle in a question to the man, would you like some also, without saying a word? Of course not so it's this kind of nonsense that the law was intended stop....

 

[NiteTiger]

I agree that it is noteworthy...I just don't see it as a blow to our Constitutional Rights--
If you assert your Rights by saying you don't want to answer any questions...that does not mean they have to stop asking--
If you simply do not open your mouth...you are still asserting your Right...actually, the only way you can give up that Right...is to answer their question(s)--

No, I didn't see it as a huge blow either, but I found it interesting.

But yes, if you assert your right to refuse to answer any questions, or invoke your right to have an attorney present during questioning, they do have to stop interrogating you.

There was a case in the 80s I believe, I don't have time to look it up for a proper citation just now, where a man was arrested after a shooting. The suspect invoked his right to remain silent. During the ride to jail, the officers asked the suspect if he really wanted some kid to find the gun, where was it. The suspect answered, the gun was recovered, and the suspect was convicted.

The conviction was later overturned on appeal because the officer's continued questioning was ruled a violation of his rights.

You have the right to not answer questions, and once that right is invoked, continued interrogation is viewed as a violation of those rights.

 

[kmk420kali]

No, I didn't see it as a huge blow either, but I found it interesting.

I made a mistake by saying it was out of context...in this Thread--
You simply posted the story...my bad--
I was thinking about the other Thread, that it did get blown up in....that was not you though-- Peace--

 

[NiteTiger]

I made a mistake by saying it was out of context...in this Thread--
You simply posted the story...my bad--
I was thinking about the other Thread, that it did get blown up in....that was not you though-- Peace--

Ah, okay, that explains it

Couldn't figure that context reference for the life of me

 

[kmk420kali]

Ah, okay, that explains it

Couldn't figure that context reference for the life of me

You know how they say, "To err is Human."??
Well sometimes I think I am more "Human" than most!!!
I once called a Member here a "Crackhead", for a simple math problem he presented...and I continued to argue...then found out I was the "Crackhead"!! I smoke a LOT of weed..sorry bro--

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

its not the person hes probably a peice of shit its the fact that they are using cases like this to over turn shit and put down new law without anyone saying shit... most people probably think hes guilty so its over turned is no big deal...

they dont see the big picture...