The effect of the ruling is, as the article states, that police can keep firing away questions in hopes that a person will "crack", and if that person does, the evidence is admissible in court.
Note, it has more legal significance than that. By this ruling you are effectively waiving your right to remain silent and your conduct surrounding your silence can then be used against you. Under old law the police could not interrogate you for hours if you were remaining silent. At some point it becomes obvious that a reasonable person is exercising their right to remain silent, and the police would have to stop. In addition, the police would not be allowed to comment on your silence in court. Now, with the new ruling, the evidence of your silence during hours of testimony might be admissible as evidence of your guilt whereas before the prosecutor was ABSOLUTELY barred from commenting or entering evidence about your exercise of your constitutional right. How many persons do you think will understand the difference between unambiguous and ambiguous? Hell, most people would not be able to put a definition to either word as it is.
A Miranda warning is only designed to ensure that statements made by a suspect in custody are admissible in court on the grounds that the police have reminded the suspect of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, so if he chooses to ignore it he can't claim he wasn't aware of the right.
This is not a matter of a suspect ignoring it, but not being able to understand how to effectuate their rights. Statement such as "I think I should be quiet now," "Can you stop questioning me," "I don't want to talk to you" are all equivocal statements. To fully exercise your rights will require a formalistic phrasing such as "I am evoking my right to remain silent," because simply saying "I will remain silent' does not touch upon the constitutional protections you have been offered.
I am not worried about myself, since I have the knowledge to understand and evoke my rights. However, I am deeply worried about those innocent persons who will be subject to interrogations for hours simply because they did not use the "magic words" to enforce their rights. That is simply wrong because so few persons would know how to do it. It is another card in an already stacked deck.
This message last edited by PerrinWT on 01/06/2010 at 11:28:24 PM
SCOTUS Update: Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up -
01/06/2010 07:53:14 PM
- 1034 Views
What I don't like about this decision...
01/06/2010 08:21:02 PM
- 619 Views
I think the only potential issue is if the person didn't understand the Miranda warning.
01/06/2010 10:37:42 PM
- 546 Views
that is an odd way of looking at it
01/06/2010 11:58:12 PM
- 555 Views
I'm more referring to the almost "magic words" that Kennedy introduces here.
02/06/2010 12:18:07 AM
- 579 Views
So we should not allow police to question people at all?
02/06/2010 12:31:27 AM
- 512 Views
You won't hear me complain if the Miranda rights are scaled back a bit.
02/06/2010 12:40:23 AM
- 523 Views
Forgot to mention - the 5-4 decision was split between cons and libs, but.....
01/06/2010 08:36:41 PM
- 537 Views
This seems reasonable to me.
01/06/2010 09:47:34 PM
- 580 Views
I'm stunned. Your response was reasoned, logical and concise. What have you done with Joel?
01/06/2010 10:43:22 PM
- 553 Views
Joel is going to be so pissed when he finds out that you logged onto his account.....
02/06/2010 01:42:50 AM
- 563 Views
Hey deaf people who can't speak... pound sand.
01/06/2010 09:55:41 PM
- 639 Views
well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview
02/06/2010 12:26:31 AM
- 541 Views
Re: well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview
02/06/2010 03:57:35 AM
- 562 Views
you are often questioned by the police? What are you doing to make that happen?
02/06/2010 03:35:47 PM
- 575 Views
This decision is a setback for us all.
01/06/2010 10:10:51 PM
- 659 Views
No it isn't.
01/06/2010 10:42:06 PM
- 579 Views
Re: No it isn't.
01/06/2010 11:26:07 PM
- 591 Views
Teach people to say "I'm not saying anything until my lawyer gets here." Period. *NM*
02/06/2010 12:38:24 AM
- 232 Views
Close, but not cigar.
02/06/2010 01:30:19 AM
- 595 Views
if they catch more bad guys is that a bad thing? *NM*
02/06/2010 01:50:12 AM
- 248 Views
Would you be okay with the prohibition of firearms if it lowered the crime rate?
02/06/2010 02:18:26 AM
- 546 Views
You are at the intersection of bull and shit.
02/06/2010 04:00:32 PM
- 579 Views
I am confused
01/06/2010 11:09:14 PM
- 568 Views
Re: I am confused
01/06/2010 11:15:07 PM
- 493 Views
ummm, no...
02/06/2010 12:13:59 AM
- 602 Views
Re: ummm, no...
02/06/2010 01:38:54 AM
- 531 Views
Nothing has changed
02/06/2010 01:56:08 AM
- 532 Views
Except you risk waiving them unless you specifically say you want to use them.
02/06/2010 04:07:51 AM
- 538 Views
not surprising that people who use phrases like "Police State of America" believe that
02/06/2010 03:24:25 PM
- 552 Views
As far as I can tell, this changes nothing and simply maintains the status quo.
01/06/2010 11:27:36 PM
- 560 Views
For those who don't understand the techniques of police interrogation let me make this clear.
02/06/2010 01:57:51 AM
- 600 Views
Good advice
02/06/2010 04:00:45 AM
- 503 Views