It just seems to me that everybody is just getting their panties in a wad over nothing. There's a lot of information being thrown out there that is just ridiculous. You still have the rights granted under Miranda. If you invoke your rights verbally, asking to go the bathroom does not waive them.I'm not either (a cop) - however, if either of us were, I'd doubt either of us would say any differently. And Swarmy, I didn't accuse you of being LE, I specifically said "I swear that occasionally you strike me more and more like LE everyday" - I did not mean to infer or directly accuse you of being anything other than that which you are, an anonymous screen name on an anonymous threaded discussion board (it is, after all, only we "verified providers" that are held to a higher standard and subject to vetting). Your posts do occasionally strike me from a political and sociological viewpoint consistent with LE, but so do many, many others here (and that is not an indictment, it is just an observation).
Good example DD. Innocent or guilty...keep your mouth shut.
And no Jackie....I'm not a cop. Originally Posted by swarmyone
But, you are wrong, in your postulate above - it DOES waive the right you previously invoked if you ask for or say ANYTHING . . . any utterance can be construed by the interrogator that you have waived your right to silence. ANY.
And, THAT is why the ruling strikes me the way it does and my panties are in a bunch, so to speak - but there's obviously little I can do about it except educate myself (and perhaps others) and know what to say (or what not to). Read the ruling and the commentary . . . if you don't get your panties in a wad when your rights have been curtailed by judicial review, just what does it take?
"Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. ANY STATEMENT! They aren't limiting this to a "formal statement" . . .
It is now your responsibility as an accused or suspected individual that has been given a Miranda warning to REASSERT the right verbally if you UTTER ANY WORD or sound. Otherwise, LE may assume that in your utterance, regardless of what it is, you have waived your previously invoked right to silence, they may interrogate you until you reassert the right and they may hold ANY and everything you may say as a statement which will be used against you until such time as you do reassert your right and sit silent.
The absurdity of it was even discussed in the dissent (citation below) noting that you have to violate the right granted to you to assert it initially and assert it subsequently if you make any utterance after invoking the right. So, not to offer offense, but I'll go with the opinion of four Justices over your own when they say that yes, indeed, asking to go to the bathroom waives your right as previously invoked. I understand you may find that ridiculous, but it is a fact!
So, enough from me, </end rant> - and Swarmy, if you're ever questioned and given a Miranda warning, I hope you'll remember to reassert your right to silence if you ask to take a whizz. Otherwise, anything you say is fair game. Or, you could just do as DD and Master Dennis did and use their floor, in silence.
PS - Swarmy, I don't mean to single you out nor be overtly contrary to you personally, this is about an issue and viewpoints - it is not personal, at all.
And, since I no longer actively, openly accept bookings in Kansas City as I am under contract with a legal brothel, I find myself more opinionated and less tactful perhaps when I am home visiting, I apologize for being overly abrasive if I have come across as such, I don't mean to be so, not intentionally . . . I just have grown tired of sitting on my hands and worrying if my opinions would be percieved as too "bitchy" or scare off business becasue I have a brain - no one usually wants to see the 'smart girl" . . . Since that is no longer an issue, I find myself more apt to take a position and stick with it, backing it up with factual citation, even if it proves to be a Sisyphean task. In other words, I'm more likely to be "me" - a strong, opinionated, smart woman with a wealth of experience and a penchant (as proven in past postings here and on ASPD) for those things regarding the nature and interpretation of law.
Aside from the fact that anyone that has ever spent any time with me professionally would tell you I am a pleasure to be with, uninhibitedly fun loving and anything other than how I write . . . I'm damn good at what I do . . . my written persona differs from that IRL, but I can happily "engage" these discussions IRL if necessary . . . this schism has been discussed before and is common in this endeavor - it holds true for a lot of "providers" that have been well educated.
Kisses,
- Jackie
-----------------------------------
In dissent to the ruling of the court, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer correctly state: "The Court concludes today that a criminal suspect waives his right to remain silent if, after sitting tacit and uncommunicative through nearly three hours of police interrogation, he utters a few one-word responses. The Court also concludes that a suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent against such a finding of 'waiver' must, counter-intuitively, speak - and must do so with sufficient precision to satisfy a clear-statement rule that construes ambiguity in favor of the police."
But it is in this portion that these dissenting justice's bring home the tactics that will allow this to continue: "Thompkins' non-responsiveness is particularly striking in the context of the officers' interview strategy, later explained as conveying to Thompkins that 'this was his opportunity to explain his side [of the story]' because '[e]verybody else, including [his] co-[d]efendants, had given their version,' and asking him '[w]ho is going to speak up for you if you don't speak up for yourself?' Id., at 10a, 21a. Yet, Helgert confirmed that the "only thing [Thompkins said] relative to his involvement [in the shooting]" occurred near the end of the interview - i.e., in response to the questions about God. Id., at 10a-11a (emphasis added). The only other responses Helgert could remember Thompkins giving were that "'[h]e didn't want a peppermint'" and "'the chair that he was sitting in was hard.'" Id., at 152a. Nevertheless, the Michigan court concluded on this record that Thompkins had not invoked his right to remain silent because 'he continued to talk with the officer, albeit sporadically,' and that he voluntarily waived that right. App. to Pet. for Cert. 75a."
By engaging Thompkins in meaningless dialog, such as asking if he wanted a mint, it gives law enforcement legal cover that the person has waived his/her right to remain silent during an interrogation.
The court's opinion and judgment is clear in this case: weaken Miranda.
- Washington Post
Additional post script: My fear is that if they can get you to speak by, for instance, by offering you coffee or water, that they will interpret that you are then willing to speak outside the presence of your attorney, even if you have implicitly asked for counsel - hence the legal opinions being bantered about in a flurry stating that one should reassert both their right to silence and their right to counsel if they make any utterance after their initial invocation of the rights granted to them under Miranda.
