Speak up if you want to remain silent

imported post

http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D9G2MATG0.html

Bronson

imported post

Thanks for posting.

I really dont see the point. If you dont talk, then you have exercised the right not to, and if you do say that you wont speak, the cops arent going to stop talking to you anyhow.

imported post

The way I understand it, that is the point; you have to verbally tell them you invoke your right to be silent and/or request an attorney. Your rights are not automatically granted until you state such. And if you start talking again, you have waived your right that you have just declared; hence you have to state your right to remain silent and/or request an attorney again.
The cops will continue to ask you questions repeatedly and if you answer even one, you have waved your rights.
We have discussed these issues before, but now to have the SCOTUS to uphold the lesser requirement by the cops, just makes it so we have to be more cautious and vigilant about not talking to cops.

So bottom line...same as usual...invoke your rights and....SHUT UP!

JMO

imported post

Two can play this game. Freedom is broader than the law--the law can never encompass all the freedoms. The simple fact thata government must first have some freedom to make a law shows that freedom is senior torestriction.

"Detective, I invoke every single right, privilege, and immunity. Straight ticket. No exceptions."

I say that without having read the opinion, yet.

imported post

Something else from the article is that the way it is supposed to work is that once somebody claims their right to silence then the interrogationshould stop. If you do not formally claim the right the interrogation can continue in the hopes that you'll crack under the pressure.

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.

Click to expand...

Bronson

imported post

officers need more restraint imo.

like requirements to keep all police and 911 records for 7 years.

require dash cams to be on whenever an officer is initiating a stop,and require them to have mics on they're person,which are turned on whenever an officer leaves his squad car while on duty.

and that not only protects the civilians,but also the LEO's

imported post

lil_freak_66 wrote:

officers need more restraint imo.

like requirements to keep all police and 911 records for 7 years.

require dash cams to be on whenever an officer is initiating a stop,and require them to have mics on they're person,which are turned on whenever an officer leaves his squad car while on duty.

and that not only protects the civilians,but also the LEO's

Click to expand...

Silly fellow...

You want there to be accountability...

We can't go having that, now, can we?