Envoking your right to remain silent requires YOU to remain silent

[F350]

I have hesitated to post this, every state has it's own laws/procedures so check your laws; several years ago I rode on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy and got to know several of the county judges and the prosecutor (who later became First Assistant US Attorney). Their opinion was that in the event of a defensive shoot a person should say "He attacked me; I was in fear for my life and defended myself" that asserts your claim of justifiable defense, especially in jurisdictions where defense of self is an affirmative defense (YOU have to raise the claim of self defense). In many jurisdictions (as was my state at the time) the claim of self defense precludes immediate arrest, THEY must disprove the claim before you can be arrested, Keeping Your Big Mouth Shut may allow them to arrest you on the spot and then conduct the investigation (Your Mileage May Vary, check your state laws). AFTER asserting your claim of self defense and requesting an attorney then KYBMS.

 

[Repeater]

Obstruction?

You're only required to verbally invoke your right to keep silent if you want the interrogation to stop; there's no law that says you have to say anything at all at any time; you could just sit there and say nothing for as long as they want to keep you awake without food and water under the harsh lights.

Oh yeah; good thing we don't live in New Jersey, huh?

N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop

Two New Jersey state troopers cuffed a woman along a Warren County roadway and hauled her in on an obstruction charge because she refused to answer questions during a routine traffic stop, according to dashboard camera footage obtained by NJ Advance Media.

...

Attorneys for the state have sought in federal filings to have the civil case dismissed, claiming the troopers "acted in good faith and without fraud or malice." They have not yet addressed the specific charges in court papers.

...

The dashboard camera footage shows Trooper Stazzone approached the vehicle on the passenger side and asked Musarra for her license, registration and insurance.

"While you're looking for that, do you know why you're being pulled over tonight?" the trooper asked her, according to the tape. She claims she provided the documents but didn't respond.

After asking her several more times, Stazzone walked to the other side of her car, rapping on the window with his flashlight and again demanding a response.

"You're going to be placed under arrest if you don't answer my questions," he told her. Musarra claims the force of the flashlight chipped her window.

The footage shows she eventually told the trooper she was an attorney and that she did not have to answer questions. Stazzone then ordered her out of the vehicle.

As the two troopers cuffed her and walked her toward a troop car, Musarra asked them, "Are you detaining me because I refused to speak?"

"Yeah," Stazzone replied, according to the video. "Yeah, obstruction," Gosa added.

But wait, it gets worse:

In her lawsuit, Musarra claims she was patted down twice and cuffed to a bench inside a holding cell. She also claims the troopers denied her request to call her parents, promising to call on her behalf but never doing so.

She claims a supervisor, Trooper James Butler, later entered the cell to ask her what had happened.

"I said, 'Well, the trooper arrested me for not answering his questions,'" Musarra told NJ Advance Media. "And the supervisor indicated (to me) that was obstruction."

So, what do you think? Rookie mistake?

 

[color of law]

I have hesitated to post this, every state has it's own laws/procedures so check your laws; several years ago I rode on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy and got to know several of the county judges and the prosecutor (who later became First Assistant US Attorney). Their opinion was that in the event of a defensive shoot a person should say "He attacked me; I was in fear for my life and defended myself" that asserts your claim of justifiable defense, especially in jurisdictions where defense of self is an affirmative defense (YOU have to raise the claim of self defense). In many jurisdictions (as was my state at the time) the claim of self defense precludes immediate arrest, THEY must disprove the claim before you can be arrested, Keeping Your Big Mouth Shut may allow them to arrest you on the spot and then conduct the investigation (Your Mileage May Vary, check your state laws). AFTER asserting your claim of self defense and requesting an attorney then KYBMS.

Oh yes, the Lois Lerner Defense....

He attacked me; I was in fear for my life and defended myself. Now I must expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Oh yes, the Lois Lerner Defense....

He attacked me; I was in fear for my life and defended myself. Now I must expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination.

LOL ... you just provided a statement that can be used against you ... ( u already knew that I assume ).


Keep quite, call the bail bondsman if you don't have the cash for bail.

Arrested in NJ ? I would ask to speak to the American Consulate too.

I've had issues with NJ cops .... nothing I could not handle ... they hate Americans I can tell you that.

 

[TFred]

Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 - Supreme Court 2013

It's probably helpful to remind folks what this case was actually about, and the somewhat quirky context surrounding the opinion.

From the Syllabus of the SCOTUS opinion:

Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, voluntarily
answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked
whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene
of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection,
the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was
convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed,
rejecting his claim that the pros- ecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief
violated the Fifth Amendment.

Held : The judgment is affirmed.​

Essentially, if you were detained at a large crime scene, and the cops ran down a list, saying:

"Did you do A?"
"Did you do B?"
"Did you do D?"
"Did you do E?"
"Did you do F?"

And you said "No!" to each question, except then when they got to "G", you suddenly decided to say nothing... it was the fact that he said nothing that was used against him in the trial, which brings us right back to KYBMS!!

TFred

 

[davidmcbeth]

It's probably helpful to remind folks what this case was actually about, and the somewhat quirky context surrounding the opinion.

From the Syllabus of the SCOTUS opinion:

Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, voluntarily
answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked
whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene
of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection,
the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was
convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed,
rejecting his claim that the pros- ecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief
violated the Fifth Amendment.

Held : The judgment is affirmed.​

Essentially, if you were detained at a large crime scene, and the cops ran down a list, saying:

"Did you do A?"
"Did you do B?"
"Did you do D?"
"Did you do E?"
"Did you do F?"

And you said "No!" to each question, except then when they got to "G", you suddenly decided to say nothing... it was the fact that he said nothing that was used against him in the trial, which brings us right back to KYBMS!!

TFred

Solve this issue all together and make any statement you say inadmissible. Some countries go this route.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Solve this issue all together and make any statement you say inadmissible. Some countries go this route.

Since nothing you say can be used in your defense, (It's on the chalkboard in the "Don't Talk to Cops" video) I'd have to agree.

 

[Citizen]

Caveat - reminder.

If at any point, the individual responds to questions or volunteers information then the game goes hot again and the process of needing to invoke one's right to be silent begins all over. KYBMS.

Re-read the verbatim quote in post #33 above. The questioning must cease. There can can be no further questions for "invididual to respond".

Readers should note that just because the law says such-and-such, it does not mean police cannot conveniently mis-remember whether they asked you a certain question to which you responded "before" you invoked your Miranda rights. Best policy according to criminal defense attorney and law professor James Duane, SCOTUS Justice Jackson, and VA Beach detective Bruch, is to say nothing. (See Professor James Duane's video on YouTube "Don't Talk to Police". Pay particular attention to what the cop says when he arrives at the podium.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Just for a refresher,,, watch the movie, "My cousin Vinnie".

Cop, to suspect,,, after you stole the can of tuna, you shot the clerk...
suspect, back to cop,,, I shot the clerk?...

Later in court.

Cop on witness stand, referring to his note book.
The accused then told me,,, "I shot the clerk"!

The Cops give you One piece of advice, it is free, it is priceless!!! Head it!!!
KYBMS!!! The only thing you should say is,,, I Want My Lawyer!!!

 

[user]

Oh yeah; good thing we don't live in New Jersey, huh?

N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop


But wait, it gets worse:


So, what do you think? Rookie mistake?

I've had cases exactly like that here. Always either dismissed or nolle pros'ed. No question it's false arrest / false imprisonment. But I've never had someone want to file suit against the cops. Which is why I think it keeps happening. I was chatting with a couple of Fairfax Co. cops in the back of the courtroom one day when such a case was going on. Those cops thought it was funny, and I asked them why. They said that everyone knew that the only chance of the defendant being convicted was if they came to court without a lawyer, so they called it "punishment by lawyer" - the legal fees are about ten times the possible fine. But when they get peeved by some citizen's behavior and can't legally do anything about it, they charge the person with something they know is bogus just to put them through the legal wringer.

 

[user]

I have hesitated to post this, every state has it's own laws/procedures so check your laws; several years ago I rode on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy and got to know several of the county judges and the prosecutor (who later became First Assistant US Attorney). Their opinion was that in the event of a defensive shoot a person should say "He attacked me; I was in fear for my life and defended myself" that asserts your claim of justifiable defense, especially in jurisdictions where defense of self is an affirmative defense (YOU have to raise the claim of self defense). In many jurisdictions (as was my state at the time) the claim of self defense precludes immediate arrest, THEY must disprove the claim before you can be arrested, Keeping Your Big Mouth Shut may allow them to arrest you on the spot and then conduct the investigation (Your Mileage May Vary, check your state laws). AFTER asserting your claim of self defense and requesting an attorney then KYBMS.

Well, this is the "Virginia" sub-forum, and I don't pretend to be an attorney anywhere other than Virginia (where some might say I am pretending to be an attorney). So, what I really suggest is that anyone who might envision himself being in this situation someday, go to my website and download the PDF file, "letter to law enforcement". Keep a few copies handy in different places (e.g., anyplace where you could conceivably carry a gun).

 

[Repeater]

'Contempt of Cop'

I've had cases exactly like that here. Always either dismissed or nolle pros'ed. No question it's false arrest / false imprisonment. But I've never had someone want to file suit against the cops. Which is why I think it keeps happening. I was chatting with a couple of Fairfax Co. cops in the back of the courtroom one day when such a case was going on. Those cops thought it was funny, and I asked them why. They said that everyone knew that the only chance of the defendant being convicted was if they came to court without a lawyer, so they called it "punishment by lawyer" - the legal fees are about ten times the possible fine. But when they get peeved by some citizen's behavior and can't legally do anything about it, they charge the person with something they know is bogus just to put them through the legal wringer.

Sure; I was thinking it was really Garden-variety Contempt of Cop.

How well can you play?

 

[All American Nightmare]

We could always talk about how the weather was or --moderator edited-- Is that a bad idea?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk