• Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Here’s the actual case ruling:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/

    Excerpts:

    Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “ ‘right to cut off questioning.’ ” Mosley, supra, at 103 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 474). Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.

    The prosecution therefore does not need to show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express. An “implicit waiver” of the “right to remain silent” is sufficient to admit a suspect’s statement into evidence.

    Perhaps not relevant to the present discussion, but I find it notable that you must “unambiguously” assert your Miranda rights in order to claim them, but that you don’t have to unambiguously waive your Miranda rights. All you need to do for the justice system to consider your Miranda rights waived for a particular question is to answer it.

    I would also mention that you have Miranda rights at all times, whether they have been read to you or not. Indeed, the only time those rights are required to be read to you is immediately before the police ask you questions about a crime you are suspected of committing. Considering that a “witness” statement can oh so easily make the witness into a suspect, it is highly possible for someone being questioned by the police for any reason to make a self-incriminating statement prior to being Mirandized.

    tl;dr: Shut the fuck up.