4 ms·

Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used Against Defendant

19 points by spoiledtechie 13y ago

beatgammit 13y ago
What does this have to do with search and seizure? Maybe you meant the 5th amendment? Even so, it doesn't seem that the defendent was forced to witness against himself and there was definitely a jury involved. I don't agree this violates my 4th, or even 5th, amendment rights. Maybe someone else can explain the importance of this to me?
- ante_annum 13y ago
  Actually, the opinion is pretty short and I'd recommend reading it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf The long story short is that the plaintiff had not actually been arrested, so he hadn't been read his Miranda rights, and then his silence was used against him in court when he went silent after certain questions. This opinion says that the 5th is not simply a "right to remain silent", nor is that phrase even in the 5th. If he wanted to claim his rights, he needed to explicitly say so. That's not new, but this case reiterates that point in non-arrest situations.
kenthorvath 13y ago
The article slams Alito, but the judgment was 5-4. Whenever rulings are this close, it suggests that there are nuances and rationale arguments on both sides. As disconcerting as this ruling is, there is likely more to this than the headline. For example, it seems that one's 5th ammendment right against self-incrimination is preserved in this ruling so long as one verbally invokes it, i.e., "I plead the fifth". No, it's not ideal, and it gives a great deal of power to law enforcement, which will sometimes be wielded irresponsibly. But, destroyed? - that's a bit hyperbolic.
- ante_annum 13y ago
  That's not a new ruling though. Having to claim the right to not self-incriminate was ruled in Minnesota v Murphy, 1984. This is specific to cases where "invokers" have not been read Miranda because they're not under arrest.
dtrizzle 13y ago
5th Amendment, not 4th.
nathan_long 13y ago
Doesn't this imply "you don't have a right to remain silent until you're told that you do"? In other words, the Miranda reading GRANTS you that right rather than INFORMING you of it?

19 points by spoiledtechie 13y ago

What does this have to do with search and seizure? Maybe you meant the 5th amendment? Even so, it doesn't seem that the defendent was forced to witness against himself and there was definitely a jury involved. I don't agree this violates my 4th, or even 5th, amendment rights. Maybe someone else can explain the importance of this to me?

ante_annum 13y ago
Actually, the opinion is pretty short and I'd recommend reading it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf The long story short is that the plaintiff had not actually been arrested, so he hadn't been read his Miranda rights, and then his silence was used against him in court when he went silent after certain questions. This opinion says that the 5th is not simply a "right to remain silent", nor is that phrase even in the 5th. If he wanted to claim his rights, he needed to explicitly say so. That's not new, but this case reiterates that point in non-arrest situations.

kenthorvath 13y ago

The article slams Alito, but the judgment was 5-4. Whenever rulings are this close, it suggests that there are nuances and rationale arguments on both sides. As disconcerting as this ruling is, there is likely more to this than the headline. For example, it seems that one's 5th ammendment right against self-incrimination is preserved in this ruling so long as one verbally invokes it, i.e., "I plead the fifth". No, it's not ideal, and it gives a great deal of power to law enforcement, which will sometimes be wielded irresponsibly. But, destroyed? - that's a bit hyperbolic.

ante_annum 13y ago
That's not a new ruling though. Having to claim the right to not self-incriminate was ruled in Minnesota v Murphy, 1984. This is specific to cases where "invokers" have not been read Miranda because they're not under arrest.

dtrizzle 13y ago

5th Amendment, not 4th.

nathan_long 13y ago

Doesn't this imply "you don't have a right to remain silent until you're told that you do"? In other words, the Miranda reading GRANTS you that right rather than INFORMING you of it?