SCOTUS: pre-miranda silence can be used against you

[88GT]

Except agents of the State used to resort to even more trickery and outright threats and actual violence to get confessions out of people, including confessions from innocent people. They still do this, but Miranda has curbed some of the more egregious violations of 5th amendment rights.

Granted, but Miranda doesn't tell them they can't obtain confessions in less than honest ways. Similar, but not the same. We still have the right to STFU. Always have.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Granted, but Miranda doesn't tell them they can't obtain confessions in less than honest ways. Similar, but not the same. We still have the right to STFU. Always have.

No argument, but I view Miranda as more a brake on the agents of the state than a reminder to the suspects.

 

[griffin]

No argument, but I view Miranda as more a brake on the agents of the state than a reminder to the suspects.

Good point. Smart and honest cops don't need it. And they realize they don't even have to Mirandize you if they are not going to question you. Unfortunately not all cops are honest.

 

[Trigger Time]

Like Kirk mentioned above a lot of suspects think they are gonna outsmart the cops so they speak. I have no problem with guilty people getting convicted. But someone who is innocent and THINKS they have nothing to lose by making a statement to police even before being arrested can find themselves in a bind once the prosecuting monkeys have a go at it.
It's nothing against the cop on the street, I just don't trust lawyers/prosecutors who base success on a conviction percentage. If a cop got arrested they wouldn't be talking either and you can take that to the bank.

 

[88GT]

No argument, but I view Miranda as more a brake on the agents of the state than a reminder to the suspects.

True. I suppose it's not Miranda per se but the cottage industry of crap that has evolved from it that irritates me.

 

[Prometheus]

Because it's so important to keep your 'baconhole' shut from the very start:
http://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik

 

[griffin]

If a cop got arrested they wouldn't be talking either

Nonsense. As the cop himself would tell you, if you have nothing to hide...

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, the guy selectively answered questions. 5A exists whether someone is Mirandized or not. Kirk is right, shut your baconhole from the very beginning.

Ding!

 

[Libertarian01]

And now, the rest of the story...

Because it's so important to keep your 'baconhole' shut from the very start:

To All,

The followup to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

From first hand experience comes words of wisdom.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rambone]

No, the article clearly says that being an idiot and selectively answering some questions but not others can be used to convict.

We've had this discussion before on some level. Perhaps it was the contradictory requirement that invoking the 5th required someone to respond to questions, thus preventing him from keeping his baconhole shut entirely. But we've had this discussion.

On a side note: I've always wondered at the love affair with Miranda. I come back to that scene in one of the Shrek movies: "Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent. What you lack is the ability." Or something along that lines. I don't think I will ever understand the mental gymnastics used to justify a legal precedent that says that the people trying to convict you had to tell you that you had the right not to answer in the first place. The 5th has always existed. We don't need the state to be required to tell us.

That's an excuse. What other right does the State have an obligation to remind us of?

True. I suppose it's not Miranda per se but the cottage industry of crap that has evolved from it that irritates me.

You seem to be more focused on the decades-old Miranda case than this week's decision. What is your reaction to the new standard of "evidence" that will be used to convict people?

 

[88GT]

You seem to be more focused on the decades-old Miranda case than this week's decision. What is your reaction to the new standard of "evidence" that will be used to convict people?

There is no new standard of evidence. I'm quite certain the implied guilt for selectively answering has been used prior to SCOTUS saying it was allowable. This only made it to SCOTUS because a lawyer decided it was the avenue he'd seek to try to keep his client out of jail.

I'm okay with it. If people can't keep their traps shut.....Don't be Donkey.

 

[rambone]

The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constititional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government. That is the profound error in the decision. As the dissenters noted, in the circumstances of the case, it was evident what Salinas was doing. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has complicated the law for persons who are the most vulnerable–persons who lack education, persons who do not speak English very well, persons who may suffer from mental problems, and persons who may be under the influence of alcohol. This is a bad day for the Bill of Rights. -- Tim Lynch, Cato Institute

 

[tenring]

" I don't recall "

 

[radonc73]

So when does refusal the search your car/ home become reasonable cause to search?

Should I make an "I plead the 5th" card made up for everytime I get pulled over for suspition of driving over the speed limit?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So when does refusal the search your car/ home become reasonable cause to search?

1. It is not.

2. Searches are the 4th Amendment, not the Fifth.

Should I make an "I plead the 5th" card made up for everytime I get pulled over for suspition of driving over the speed limit?

No, just stop playing the "I is so smart" cop games.

Shuddup. Don't go "downtown" to be "interviewed".

Stop running your baconhole about where you are going, where you are coming from, that you have a gun, that you have a third cousin that is the Town Marshal of Jughumper, Indiana. Just sit there and don't say a word. You are not being impolite by being quiet, you are being smart and acting in self-defense.

You can blow kisses if you so choose.

 

[LPMan59]

so if i get pulled over for speeding and the officer says "Where you headin' in such a hurry?", should I just remain completely silent? I just don't see that going over very well....probably worse than saying "Officer, I decline to answer that question".

 

[88GT]

so if i get pulled over for speeding and the officer says "Where you headin' in such a hurry?", should I just remain completely silent? I just don't see that going over very well....probably worse than saying "Officer, I decline to answer that question".

"That way" is always an option.

 

[LPMan59]

of course it's an option. there are plenty of options.

i guess i would like to hear some firsthand accounts of that particular option- from people and LEOs.

 

[rambone]

If you answer one question but not the next, it can be used as evidence of your guilt. Just stare straight ahead and pretend like you're deaf.

 

[Double T]