5th Amendment Ruling: Salinas v Texas

Found this interesting, and interesting that this judgement was on the 17th and it's just being written about. You are not automatically granted the right to remain silent.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-remain-silent

Thanks for this Mia.

The lesson we should take from this is to keep mouths FULLY SHUT. If you smartly decide to remain silent, then do so. But this criminal defendant talked and talked and talked (to LE), but then "shut up" when questioned (about weapon allegedly used in crime).

So it seems the court said that its OK to keep you mouth shut, BUT if you talk then you cannot assert your 5th amendment rights selectively.

Seems appropriate for peeps in the hobby to take notice with thanks to your timely and thoughtful post. If arrested, SHUT THE FUCK UP, assert right to remain silent and remain FULLY silent until you get a lawyer.

19Trees

Seems appropriate for peeps in the hobby to take notice with thanks to your timely and thoughtful post. If arrested, SHUT THE FUCK UP, assert right to remain silent and remain FULLY silent until you get a lawyer. Originally Posted by 19Trees

Thanks.
That's exactly why I posted it.

When this case was handed down, the libertarian circles I hang in and read lit up. It is so clear a violation of basic rights that everyone should be upset. We may have to start carrying cards with all of the phases we have to use when speaking with LE.
I do not consent to a search.
I invoke my right not to incriminate myself.
I want a lawyer.

The first thing I would say is "lawyer" and then shut up. Or, for real clarity, "invoking Miranda".

Oh, if you're ever called by a grand jury (I've been on one, PITA) answer the "for the record" question about your name and then state that you are invoking your fifth amendment rights and will answer no more questions. As soon as you answer a question you can't invoke. The Supremes have agreed with this.

I discussed this with a lawyer. He was quick to point out that this SCOTUS decision was only applicable to pre-custody, where issues of Miranda don't exist.

Boobs I agree with your lawyer that it applies only to pre-custody, but who decides when custody begins, the police. If an officer is allowed to question you prior to arrest, and use your refusal to answer questions as evidence of guilt, then he could also use it a PC for a search. That is why I have such problems with the SCOTUS ruling. Why not get as much information at the initial contact out on the street, or have the dash cam video the refusal to answer questions and show it to the jury. The officer decides when to place the person under arrest and at that time Miranda rights are read. The right to be free from self incrimination extends beyond the courtroom, it extends eyond the formal interview by a detective after the arrest, and it extends to all parts of our lives 24/7. That is why libertarians are upset with this.