Active Users:1159 Time:23/11/2024 03:01:43 AM
Re: At what point did that happen? PerrinWT Send a noteboard - 02/06/2010 01:48:52 AM

I don't know the specifics of the law so I'm not calling you out on this, just asking a question. That question being, "what would have kept an unscrupulous cop from deciding it wasn't clear?" Was there anything in the law that forced them to stop at a certain point, or just to use their judgment? Even in the latter case, I would assume they'd get at least 5-10 minutes of badgering before they had to throw in the towel. With the new ruling, a person can stop it before it even begins. If anything, this is an expansion of a person's rights.


The main thing that kept the cops from continuing to interrogate after they realized a person was electing to use their right to remain silent is a rule of exclusion, which is called "the fruit of the poisonous tree." Basically, if cops violate your constitutional rights and get evidence based on that violation, the evidence is inadmissible in court. It is a big deterrent because cops do not want to violate your rights, have you tell them where the body is buried, and then have any evidence gathered from the body held to be inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court put out such a harsh rule because cops were violating peoples Constitutional rights like mad, and something had to be done about it. Since the advent of the poisonous tree doctrine, cops are far more careful about violating a suspects rights, which is something every American should be grateful for.

As far as "clarity required" the previous default option was you were NOT waiving your rights. If you were completely silent for a long period of time where a reasonable person could recognize you were exercising your right to remain silent, the police had to stop. Now, there is no such thing stopping them. I know the point seems like a minor theoretical difference from the original position, but it has huge practical effects for those persons in custody. I could now make statements all day about I want to be silent, but without the magic words I may not get that right. Some cops will be good and realize it is time to back off, but for those who many not be as good the Supreme Court just gave them a golden ticket.
This message last edited by PerrinWT on 02/06/2010 at 01:51:10 AM
Reply to message
SCOTUS Update: Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up - - 01/06/2010 07:53:14 PM 1031 Views
What I don't like about this decision... - 01/06/2010 08:21:02 PM 616 Views
I think the only potential issue is if the person didn't understand the Miranda warning. - 01/06/2010 10:37:42 PM 543 Views
Damn you common sense!!! *NM* - 02/06/2010 02:56:17 AM 244 Views
that is an odd way of looking at it - 01/06/2010 11:58:12 PM 552 Views
I'm more referring to the almost "magic words" that Kennedy introduces here. - 02/06/2010 12:18:07 AM 576 Views
So we should not allow police to question people at all? - 02/06/2010 12:31:27 AM 511 Views
You won't hear me complain if the Miranda rights are scaled back a bit. - 02/06/2010 12:40:23 AM 520 Views
The goal is not to keep guilty people from confessing - 02/06/2010 01:48:48 AM 522 Views
The way I see it... - 02/06/2010 03:06:01 AM 653 Views
Seems reasonable to me - 01/06/2010 09:44:30 PM 645 Views
This seems reasonable to me. - 01/06/2010 09:47:34 PM 577 Views
Hey deaf people who can't speak... pound sand. - 01/06/2010 09:55:41 PM 635 Views
well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview - 02/06/2010 12:26:31 AM 540 Views
Re: well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview - 02/06/2010 03:57:35 AM 559 Views
you are often questioned by the police? What are you doing to make that happen? - 02/06/2010 03:35:47 PM 572 Views
I travel internationally - 02/06/2010 08:40:38 PM 560 Views
This decision is a setback for us all. - 01/06/2010 10:10:51 PM 657 Views
No it isn't. - 01/06/2010 10:42:06 PM 578 Views
Re: No it isn't. - 01/06/2010 11:26:07 PM 588 Views
bah - 02/06/2010 12:11:46 AM 544 Views
Teach people to say "I'm not saying anything until my lawyer gets here." Period. *NM* - 02/06/2010 12:38:24 AM 231 Views
Close, but not cigar. - 02/06/2010 01:30:19 AM 593 Views
if they catch more bad guys is that a bad thing? *NM* - 02/06/2010 01:50:12 AM 247 Views
Would you be okay with the prohibition of firearms if it lowered the crime rate? - 02/06/2010 02:18:26 AM 543 Views
I think you have to have reasonable balance - 02/06/2010 05:48:31 PM 632 Views
You are at the intersection of bull and shit. - 02/06/2010 04:00:32 PM 578 Views
Re: You are at the intersection of bull and shit. - 02/06/2010 10:18:36 PM 576 Views
Hey douchebag, you're still wrong. - 02/06/2010 10:34:48 PM 556 Views
Any particular reason you started the name calling? - 02/06/2010 10:58:47 PM 494 Views
At what point did that happen? - 02/06/2010 01:26:13 AM 525 Views
This is what I alluded to in my response. - 02/06/2010 01:44:14 AM 603 Views
Re: At what point did that happen? - 02/06/2010 01:48:52 AM 625 Views
I am confused - 01/06/2010 11:09:14 PM 567 Views
Re: I am confused - 01/06/2010 11:15:07 PM 492 Views
ummm, no... - 02/06/2010 12:13:59 AM 599 Views
Re: ummm, no... - 02/06/2010 01:38:54 AM 528 Views
spare me the pontificating - 02/06/2010 01:50:27 AM 629 Views
Re: spare me the pontificating - 02/06/2010 02:01:27 AM 510 Views
you never wave your right to remain silent forever - 02/06/2010 01:53:07 AM 502 Views
It's perhaps odd that we're on opposite sides of this. - 02/06/2010 01:59:46 AM 544 Views
Nothing has changed - 02/06/2010 01:56:08 AM 529 Views
As far as I can tell, this changes nothing and simply maintains the status quo. - 01/06/2010 11:27:36 PM 558 Views
An interesting way of looking at it at the end. - 02/06/2010 02:05:34 AM 620 Views
For those who don't understand the techniques of police interrogation let me make this clear. - 02/06/2010 01:57:51 AM 597 Views
Good advice - 02/06/2010 04:00:45 AM 502 Views
I always love in the TV shows when... - 02/06/2010 04:16:35 AM 587 Views
Re: I always love in the TV shows when... - 02/06/2010 04:36:34 AM 680 Views

Reply to Message