The Supreme Court ruled that if you want to invoke your Miranda Rights, you have to explicitly say you want to remain silent.
Under the Miranda rule, derived from the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, police may not question a suspect who invokes his rights—and can't use as evidence incriminating statements obtained after the suspect does so.
In Tuesday's decision, the court ruled that an ambiguous situation would be treated in favor of the police.
The case came from Southfield, Mich., where a shooting suspect refused to sign a statement acknowledging that he had been given the Miranda warning but didn't expressly state he was invoking his right to remain silent.
I'm not sure if that is reasonable or not reasonable. After all, we are presumed innocent so under that consideration, shouldn't the right to remain silent be the default? And, since I haven't read the text, I don't know if the police are still required to cite the Miranda Rights.
Recent Comments