You have to speak up if you want to be silent

[pauldun170]

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.

[NONE_too_SOFT]

so in order to be silent you have to tell them you're being silent.

Yup this seems normal.

[Particle Man]

"La la laaaaaaa, I'm not talking to youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu"

*sticks tongue out*

[goof2]

I'm OK with it. In my view it is better for the person being interrogated anyway. Now that person makes their intentions clear and the police stop questioning them instead of the ambiguous situation in this instance (and plenty of others) where the police continued questioning the guy and hoping he would waive his right by answering.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

I fail to see how he was being silent.

[Rider]

I don't see a problem with this. It saves everyone a whole lot of time and grief.

[Papa_Complex]

"His right to cut off questioning"? Anyone ever heard of that before? The only time that I can recall questioning must cease, is when a subject requests a lawyer. I don't have any problem with requiring someone to say that they wish to invoke their rights but this statement seems rather odd, to me.

[Homeslice]

How are cops going to tell the suspect HOW to announce his intentions? Will there be a standardized speech telling him how to do this? if not, there's a lot of potential for abuse. Right now, the only response that they solicit from the suspect is "Do you understand these rights as I have described them to you".

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

How are cops going to tell the suspect HOW to announce his intentions? Will there be a standardized speech telling him how to do this? if not, there's a lot of potential for abuse. Right now, the only response that they solicit from the suspect is "Do you understand these rights as I have described them to you".

"Do you wish to make a statement?"