Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, very quietly, the Supreme Court has apparently abolished most American's protection via the 5th amendment:

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/salinas-v-texas-your-silence-may-be-used-against-you-re-us-supreme-court-litigation



I'm still not quite sure what to make of it. I mean, they make it sound like because there was no verbal "i am exercising my right to remain silent" or some such phrase, any action you do can be used against you.... Sort of a, you're only protected by it, if you let us know you are.

Thoughts?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, very quietly, the Supreme Court has apparently abolished most American's protection via the 5th amendment:

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/salinas-v-texas-your-silence-may-be-used-against-you-re-us-supreme-court-litigation



I'm still not quite sure what to make of it. I mean, they make it sound like because there was no verbal "i am exercising my right to remain silent" or some such phrase, any action you do can be used against you.... Sort of a, you're only protected by it, if you let us know you are.

Thoughts?

It only applies if you are being interviewed as a voluntary attendee, if you've been arrested and are being questioned in relation to a crime then this ruling does not impact your rights.

Had it been otherwise I was going to say that it would be an interesting ruling before Lois Lerner is called again about the IRS scandal.

So, yet another reason to never talk to the cops. Great, that should make their job much easier.

 Easy E wrote:
So, yet another reason to never talk to the cops. Great, that should make their job much easier.

Easy is correct. One should provide identification information, as they have a concstitutional right to that. Everything else should be under the motto - shut your trap!
Remember, never ever ever trust a police officer in this area. If they are talking to you, it means you are a suspect.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It only applies if you are being interviewed as a voluntary attendee, if you've been arrested and are being questioned in relation to a crime then this ruling does not impact your rights.

That being said, this is still another crap ruling IMO. I don't agree that you need to speak to reiterate you don't want to speak. Simple silence is adequate.

so, this is a guy that voluntarily gave the murder weapon to the police, and went with them to talk about the crime? Not the strongest move, man.

This is a pretty narrow set of facts, and it's not too worrying on the face of things.

On the other hand, is there any information available as to why people submit to these voluntary interrogations? I know some people want to avoid formal arrest, and I'm sure the odds of the police straight kicking your ass go up with a formal arrest. My concernt isn't about people in voluntary situations standing mute, it's that we may be encouraging police to improperly seek "voluntary" questioning.

 Polonius wrote:
so, this is a guy that voluntarily gave the murder weapon to the police, and went with them to talk about the crime? Not the strongest move, man.

This is a pretty narrow set of facts, and it's not too worrying on the face of things.

On the other hand, is there any information available as to why people submit to these voluntary interrogations? I know some people want to avoid formal arrest, and I'm sure the odds of the police straight kicking your ass go up with a formal arrest. My concernt isn't about people in voluntary situations standing mute, it's that we may be encouraging police to improperly seek "voluntary" questioning.

Many people use it tactically to try and throw Police off the scent and feign co-operation to show that they have nothing to hide. The Police can try to seek voluntary questioning, but if you refuse or walk out then they have to arrest you or let you walk.

The question he refused to answer was obviously an incriminating one which should have bumped the encounter up to a level which requires a warning.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The question he refused to answer was obviously an incriminating one which should have bumped the encounter up to a level which requires a warning.

this isn't a particularly arcane aspect of the law. The Fifth Amendmetn states, "No person...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

The key phrase is "shall be compelled." Meaning, the nature of the questioning, not the content of the questions, is the key. A person can, and often is, a witness against himself. What the government can't do is compel you do so, as in under oath or custodial interogation.

Because SCOTUS aren't idiots, they made a rule stating that a person can so refuse without the fact of that refusal being evdience. They rightly know that juries will be very biased about a person that refuses to answer questions.

From a "fairness" point of view, i can see being confused why a person needs to invoke protection, but the court is basically saying that you can't claim protection against a threat that is not there. Meaning, standing mute doens't say "I feel compelled, so I don't want to answer that question."

 Polonius wrote:
but the court is basically saying that you can't claim protection against a threat that is not there. Meaning, standing mute doens't say "I feel compelled, so I don't want to answer that question."

Well, the threat was certainly there for Mr. Salinas, bless his stupid, murdering heart.

I still think the best way to indicate your aversion to answer a question is merely not answering it. The onus is now on someone who probably doesn't have counsel to affirmatively claim a right they may not even know they have.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Many people use it tactically to try and throw Police off the scent and feign co-operation to show that they have nothing to hide. The Police can try to seek voluntary questioning, but if you refuse or walk out then they have to arrest you or let you walk.

The Many people part makes me wonder what exactly "many" people means?

Again, I think your best bet now days is never talk to the cops unless they arrest you first and your attorney is present.

 Ouze wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
but the court is basically saying that you can't claim protection against a threat that is not there. Meaning, standing mute doens't say "I feel compelled, so I don't want to answer that question."

Well, the threat was certainly there for Mr. Salinas, bless his stupid, murdering heart.

I still think the best way to indicate your aversion to answer a question is merely not answering it. The onus is now on someone who probably doesn't have counsel to affirmatively claim a right they may not even know they have.

However, I think that one could argue that his standing there silently was "merely not answering it". In this case, it could very well have been the final nail in his coffin.