Sorry to get technical here, but your statement neither guarantees you a lawyer nor your right to remain silent.
"Until my lawyer gets here" does not mean you are asking for a lawyer. You are only REQUIRED to be given a lawyer under the 6th amendment when proceedings have begun against you and you are an indigent defendant. You have a RIGHT to a lawyer under the 5th amendment if you need help with the custodial interrogation proceedings, but you must unequivocally request one. Saying you are waiting till your lawyer shows up is not an unequivocal statement, so you could sit in the interrogation room all dam day, and the police would be required to give you nothing.
"I'm not saying anything" is not an unequivocal statement that you are electing to use your right to be silent. Thus the police can continue to question you all day. In addition, under this new ruling your silence is a waiver of your constitution right until you definitively request them. This means an officers testimony of "He looked real nervous every time I would ask him a question, almost to the point of being in tears, but he still refused to open up to me." would be admissible as an impression of your silence. Now imagine how much guilt an officer could imply to a jury out of you being silent? Scary when you realize before this case they could do no such thing.
Also, for the post above you stating that something to the effect of "anyone who watches a cop show knows how to enforce their rights" is kind of off base. We should understand our rights as they are explained to us in the Miranda warning, we SHOULD NOT be required to watch legal or police dramas to understand the specific phrasing we need to utilize our rights. We should not have to click our heels three times and say "there's no right like Miranda," "there's no right like Miranda,""there's no right like Miranda" before we are allowed our Constitutional rights.
And as a final note, should we really have to state that we are demanding our basic constitutional rights before they can be enforced. If a cop is beating the crap out of me should I be required to say "Officer I am exercising my Due Process right, so I demand you stop the beating" before it is unconstitutional?
"Until my lawyer gets here" does not mean you are asking for a lawyer. You are only REQUIRED to be given a lawyer under the 6th amendment when proceedings have begun against you and you are an indigent defendant. You have a RIGHT to a lawyer under the 5th amendment if you need help with the custodial interrogation proceedings, but you must unequivocally request one. Saying you are waiting till your lawyer shows up is not an unequivocal statement, so you could sit in the interrogation room all dam day, and the police would be required to give you nothing.
"I'm not saying anything" is not an unequivocal statement that you are electing to use your right to be silent. Thus the police can continue to question you all day. In addition, under this new ruling your silence is a waiver of your constitution right until you definitively request them. This means an officers testimony of "He looked real nervous every time I would ask him a question, almost to the point of being in tears, but he still refused to open up to me." would be admissible as an impression of your silence. Now imagine how much guilt an officer could imply to a jury out of you being silent? Scary when you realize before this case they could do no such thing.
Also, for the post above you stating that something to the effect of "anyone who watches a cop show knows how to enforce their rights" is kind of off base. We should understand our rights as they are explained to us in the Miranda warning, we SHOULD NOT be required to watch legal or police dramas to understand the specific phrasing we need to utilize our rights. We should not have to click our heels three times and say "there's no right like Miranda," "there's no right like Miranda,""there's no right like Miranda" before we are allowed our Constitutional rights.
And as a final note, should we really have to state that we are demanding our basic constitutional rights before they can be enforced. If a cop is beating the crap out of me should I be required to say "Officer I am exercising my Due Process right, so I demand you stop the beating" before it is unconstitutional?
This message last edited by PerrinWT on 02/06/2010 at 01:32:43 AM
SCOTUS Update: Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up -
01/06/2010 07:53:14 PM
- 1101 Views

What I don't like about this decision...
01/06/2010 08:21:02 PM
- 685 Views
I think the only potential issue is if the person didn't understand the Miranda warning.
01/06/2010 10:37:42 PM
- 618 Views
that is an odd way of looking at it
01/06/2010 11:58:12 PM
- 631 Views
I'm more referring to the almost "magic words" that Kennedy introduces here.
02/06/2010 12:18:07 AM
- 650 Views
So we should not allow police to question people at all?
02/06/2010 12:31:27 AM
- 582 Views
You won't hear me complain if the Miranda rights are scaled back a bit.
02/06/2010 12:40:23 AM
- 578 Views
Forgot to mention - the 5-4 decision was split between cons and libs, but.....
01/06/2010 08:36:41 PM
- 584 Views
This seems reasonable to me.
01/06/2010 09:47:34 PM
- 656 Views
I'm stunned. Your response was reasoned, logical and concise. What have you done with Joel?
01/06/2010 10:43:22 PM
- 623 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
- 637 Views
Hey deaf people who can't speak... pound sand.
01/06/2010 09:55:41 PM
- 717 Views
well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview
02/06/2010 12:26:31 AM
- 610 Views
Re: well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview
02/06/2010 03:57:35 AM
- 621 Views
you are often questioned by the police? What are you doing to make that happen?
02/06/2010 03:35:47 PM
- 660 Views
This decision is a setback for us all.
01/06/2010 10:10:51 PM
- 726 Views
No it isn't.
01/06/2010 10:42:06 PM
- 644 Views
Re: No it isn't.
01/06/2010 11:26:07 PM
- 653 Views
Teach people to say "I'm not saying anything until my lawyer gets here." Period. *NM*
02/06/2010 12:38:24 AM
- 258 Views
Close, but not cigar.
02/06/2010 01:30:19 AM
- 664 Views
if they catch more bad guys is that a bad thing? *NM*
02/06/2010 01:50:12 AM
- 275 Views
Would you be okay with the prohibition of firearms if it lowered the crime rate?
02/06/2010 02:18:26 AM
- 625 Views
You are at the intersection of bull and shit.
02/06/2010 04:00:32 PM
- 647 Views
I am confused
01/06/2010 11:09:14 PM
- 634 Views
Re: I am confused
01/06/2010 11:15:07 PM
- 566 Views
ummm, no...
02/06/2010 12:13:59 AM
- 662 Views
Re: ummm, no...
02/06/2010 01:38:54 AM
- 599 Views
Nothing has changed
02/06/2010 01:56:08 AM
- 601 Views
Except you risk waiving them unless you specifically say you want to use them.
02/06/2010 04:07:51 AM
- 618 Views
not surprising that people who use phrases like "Police State of America" believe that
02/06/2010 03:24:25 PM
- 620 Views
As far as I can tell, this changes nothing and simply maintains the status quo.
01/06/2010 11:27:36 PM
- 629 Views
For those who don't understand the techniques of police interrogation let me make this clear.
02/06/2010 01:57:51 AM
- 677 Views
Good advice
02/06/2010 04:00:45 AM
- 566 Views