

Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used Against Defendant - spoiledtechie
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/17/the-price-of-silence-supreme-court-rules-that-pre-miranda-silence-can-be-used-against-defendant-to-prove-guilt/

======
kenthorvath
The article slams Alito, but the judgment was 5-4. Whenever rulings are this
close, it suggests that there are nuances and rationale arguments on both
sides.

As disconcerting as this ruling is, there is likely more to this than the
headline. For example, it seems that one's 5th ammendment right against self-
incrimination is preserved in this ruling so long as one verbally invokes it,
i.e., "I plead the fifth".

No, it's not ideal, and it gives a great deal of power to law enforcement,
which will sometimes be wielded irresponsibly. But, destroyed? - that's a bit
hyperbolic.

~~~
ante_annum
That's not a new ruling though. Having to claim the right to not self-
incriminate was ruled in Minnesota v Murphy, 1984. This is specific to cases
where "invokers" have not been read Miranda because they're not under arrest.

------
beatgammit
What does this have to do with search and seizure? Maybe you meant the 5th
amendment? Even so, it doesn't seem that the defendent was forced to witness
against himself and there was definitely a jury involved.

I don't agree this violates my 4th, or even 5th, amendment rights. Maybe
someone else can explain the importance of this to me?

~~~
ante_annum
Actually, the opinion is pretty short and I'd recommend reading it.

[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf)

The long story short is that the plaintiff had not actually been arrested, so
he hadn't been read his Miranda rights, and then his silence was used against
him in court when he went silent after certain questions.

This opinion says that the 5th is not simply a "right to remain silent", nor
is that phrase even in the 5th. If he wanted to claim his rights, he needed to
explicitly say so. That's not new, but this case reiterates that point in non-
arrest situations.

------
nathan_long
Doesn't this imply "you don't have a right to remain silent until you're told
that you do"? In other words, the Miranda reading GRANTS you that right rather
than INFORMING you of it?

------
dtrizzle
5th Amendment, not 4th.

