Supreme Court Miranda Ruling: Suspects Must Explicitly Tell Police They Want To

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/supreme-court-miranda-rul_n_596012.html

WASHINGTON — Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.

In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday – over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans' rights of protection from police abuse "upside down."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

"It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.

The ruling comes in a case in which 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 he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

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."

Story continues below

He was joined in the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. "Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn't want to talk to police?" said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.

This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision – it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix – requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.

Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody – the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer – and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.

For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. 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."

She was joined in her dissent by Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."

"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.

Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he 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 had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."

Sotomayor called that reasoning "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation."

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

[Franzl]

Sounds worse than it is....I think it's the right decision, though. If no right to remain silent was claimed....how is it anybody's fault but the defendent's that he voluntarily made a statement against himself?

[John Dibble]

Well, I don't think this actually changes anything - I don't believe police have ever been required to stop questioning a suspect just because a suspect isn't talking. The suspect in this case was questioned an occasionally broke silence until he basically confessed, so it's clear he decided not to remain silent completely. So long as the answers weren't physically forced out of him I don't think there's anything wrong with being required to ask for questioning to cease.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Not at all surprising; the country is trending rapidly toward a militarized police state where costumed police thugs can run roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

And of course Elena Kagan is on the wrong side of this issue, as expected.

[Franzl]

Not at all surprising; the country is trending rapidly toward a militarized police state where costumed police thugs can run roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

And of course Elena Kagan is on the wrong side of this issue, as expected.

Did you even read about the details of the case....or is this your generic boring reaction to anything concerning the state?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, I don't think this actually changes anything - I don't believe police have ever been required to stop questioning a suspect just because a suspect isn't talking. The suspect in this case was questioned an occasionally broke silence until he basically confessed, so it's clear he decided not to remain silent completely. So long as the answers weren't physically forced out of him I don't think there's anything wrong with being required to ask for questioning to cease.

Agreed........."I want a lawyer" ends all questioning too.

[bullmoose88]

Well, I don't think this actually changes anything - I don't believe police have ever been required to stop questioning a suspect just because a suspect isn't talking. The suspect in this case was questioned an occasionally broke silence until he basically confessed, so it's clear he decided not to remain silent completely. So long as the answers weren't physically forced out of him I don't think there's anything wrong with being required to ask for questioning to cease.

Agreed........."I want a lawyer" ends all questioning too.

Bingo.  Gramps and Dibble for the win.

[Lunar]

"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."

This seems a lot different from being required to explicitly inform the police "I want to invoke my Miranda rights."  If you say you understand your right to remain silent, but talk anyway...seems like it's your loss as long as you weren't coerced.

Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.

Um, wouldn't simply not talking invoke your right to remain silent as well?

[Ban my account ffs!]

My brother has had criminal troubles and he doesn't say a word to the cops.  They get very angry and try to intimidate him and even rough him up a bit, but the only word he will utter the entire time is "lawyer".

This is what you should do if you ever are being questioned by police.  Not answering any of their questions is your constitutionally guaranteed right... but you have to actually stay silent.  Tell them you will not answer their questions and that you want a lawyer.

If you're not being charged with a crime, you still have the right not to cooperate.  They will try to tell you you can be charged with obstruction of justice, but it's just a scare tactic.  You can tell them flat out that if they want answers from you they can obtain a search warrant or subpoena you to testify in court.

There are WAAAY too many crooked cops out there to be all nice and cooperative with them.  Use your rights to the maximum and if you think that by cooperating you could get yourself into trouble, whether it be related to the crime in question or not, kindly ask them to leave.  AND BY ALL MEANS DO NOT INVITE THEM INTO YOUR HOUSE IF THEY COME UNINVITED.

You might ask:  Why do you not trust cops?

There is a very very incredibly thin line between a criminal and the cops who catch them.  Of course there are cops out there who are wonderful people who uphold the law, respect your rights, and do a wonderful service to the public.  But the bad eggs ruin it for everybody in my book.  They are, and should never be regarded as being, above the law.  They are enforcers of the law but are every bit as subject to it as you are and should thus be seen as your equal.

[Sbane]

So as long as you clearly say you wish to remain silent, the police will stop questioning you? What if after that point the police does not stop questioning you and you blurt something out, can that be used in court against you? Probably not I am guessing, but can someone with a greater understanding of this ruling clarify that for me?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So as long as you clearly say you wish to remain silent, the police will stop questioning you? What if after that point the police does not stop questioning you and you blurt something out, can that be used in court against you? Probably not I am guessing, but can someone with a greater understanding of this ruling clarify that for me?

Nope they won't necessarily stop questioning you.......and you better not blurt anything out.

Like Snowguy said - Say one word -  "Lawyer".

[Verily]

"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."

This seems a lot different from being required to explicitly inform the police "I want to invoke my Miranda rights."  If you say you understand your right to remain silent, but talk anyway...seems like it's your loss as long as you weren't coerced.

Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.

Um, wouldn't simply not talking invoke your right to remain silent as well?

If you consider 24-hour interrogation invoking your rights.

The problem with this ruling is that the court assumes, wrongly, that most people are aware of basic legal principles like Miranda rights. The rapid standard police line is not enough to inform them; they must be told in more explicit terms of, not only their rights, but what needs be done to invoke them, before rapid-fire non-stop questioning should be able to begin.

The nonsense about cop dramas again assumes that people actually understand and appreciate the technicalities the shows present, which is rare (and in any case such shows usually have it wrong).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What's interesting in this thread is there is no one, not even uber-conservative posters, cheering this decision.  Franzl's agreement is puzzling though.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Question - How do you remain silent during a traffic stop?  Cops are generally like bitchy moms who want to lecture you and ask a hundred stupid questions during one.......

[John Dibble]

Question - How do you remain silent during a traffic stop?  Cops are generally like bitchy moms who want to lecture you and ask a hundred stupid questions during one.......

Not talking is always a good place to start, though I'm not sure why you'd want to be silent during a traffic stop - seems to me like it would be more trouble than its worth.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Question - How do you remain silent during a traffic stop?  Cops are generally like bitchy moms who want to lecture you and ask a hundred stupid questions during one.......

Not talking is always a good place to start, though I'm not sure why you'd want to be silent during a traffic stop - seems to me like it would be more trouble than its worth.

Do GA cops cut you a break if you try and talk your way out of it or lie......especially if you know you're guilty?

Doesn't happen like that here.

[John Dibble]

Question - How do you remain silent during a traffic stop?  Cops are generally like bitchy moms who want to lecture you and ask a hundred stupid questions during one.......

Not talking is always a good place to start, though I'm not sure why you'd want to be silent during a traffic stop - seems to me like it would be more trouble than its worth.

Do GA cops cut you a break if you try and talk your way out of it or lie......especially if you know you're guilty?

Doesn't happen like that here.

I'm saying that I don't find it particularly useful to be completely silent during a traffic stop. At the point that they've stopped you they generally know you've done something since they saw it happen. Your silence just isn't going to help you. In fact if you say nothing at all then they may get suspicious and take up even more of your time - at the very least you should be saying "yes, sir", "no, sir", etc. when they are talking to you.

And you can talk your way out of it sometimes, but it can't be by lying. If you're apologetic and respectful towards the officer then they may be inclined to let it go depending on the offense and their mood - it happened for me once when I didn't notice a "no right turn on red" sign and turned right on red. It also helps if you roll your windows down, turn your car off, and throw your keys on the dashboard. It helps make them more comfortable and thus more accommodating. I don't think and of that's limited to GA though, it's more of a matter of luck.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Question - How do you remain silent during a traffic stop?  Cops are generally like bitchy moms who want to lecture you and ask a hundred stupid questions during one.......

Not talking is always a good place to start, though I'm not sure why you'd want to be silent during a traffic stop - seems to me like it would be more trouble than its worth.

Do GA cops cut you a break if you try and talk your way out of it or lie......especially if you know you're guilty?

Doesn't happen like that here.

I'm saying that I don't find it particularly useful to be completely silent during a traffic stop. At the point that they've stopped you they generally know you've done something since they saw it happen. Your silence just isn't going to help you. In fact if you say nothing at all then they may get suspicious and take up even more of your time - at the very least you should be saying "yes, sir", "no, sir", etc. when they are talking to you.

And you can talk your way out of it sometimes, but it can't be by lying. If you're apologetic and respectful towards the officer then they may be inclined to let it go depending on the offense and their mood - it happened for me once when I didn't notice a "no right turn on red" sign and turned right on red. It also helps if you roll your windows down, turn your car off, and throw your keys on the dashboard. It helps make them more comfortable and thus more accommodating. I don't think and of that's limited to GA though, it's more of a matter of luck.

Ok, as always, nicely written.

Let's take this scenario - You "yes, sir", "sorry, sir", "no, sir"  your way through the stop.  But Mr. I'veGottaBadgeAndGun is going to rake you over the coals with his ticket.  You fight it at the Magistrate level.  Can he use your admissions against you?

[John Dibble]

Let's take this scenario - You "yes, sir", "sorry, sir", "no, sir"  your way through the stop.  But Mr. I'veGottaBadgeAndGun is going to rake you over the coals with his ticket.  You fight it at the Magistrate level.  Can he use your admissions against you?

Depends on what you said yes, no, or sorry to. If you said "yes, sir" when he asks for your license and proof on insurance, that's either going to be harmless or maybe even beneficial. (since you're not acting like an ass) If you admitted to yourself speeding or whatever crime it is, then yeah it could be used against you, though it's not that likely they'd need your admission if you're actually guilty - you probably would have been caught on dash cam or something doing whatever it is you were doing to land you there in the first place. Unless the cop really screwed up and your ticket is demonstrably bogus, you're probably not going to get out of it in court regardless of what you said to the cop when he stopped you.