No more fifth amendment?

[hardware]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf



Did the fifth amendment just get trash binned with this one? I would greatly appreciate some clarification on this.


Thanks much!

[popper]

No, it's always been a requirement to verbally state your 'taking the 5th', and most courts state that all questioning must be proceeded by the statement. All or none situation. Except for government workers, as we have seen in house testimony.

[MT Gianni]

Quoting from the article:
Without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda
warnings, petitioner voluntarily answered the questions
of a police officer who was investigating a murder. But
petitioner balked when the officer asked whether a ballistics test would show that the shell casings found at the
crime scene would match petitioner’s shotgun. Petitioner
was subsequently charged with murder, and at trial prosecutors argued that his reaction to the officer’s question
suggested that he was guilty. Petitioner claims that this
argument violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he
did not expressly invoke the privilege against selfincrimination in response to the officer’s question. It has
long been settled that the privilege “generally is not selfexecuting” and that a witness who desires its protection
“‘must claim it.’” Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420,
425, 427 (1984) (quoting United States v. Monia, 317 U. S

For the best protection refuse to answer any questions without your Lawyer present. It is a terrible place we have arrived at but we are here and that is our only freedom.

[Frank46]

Just my two cents here, but he should have verbally invoked the 5th amendment rather than refusing by his silence to answer the question. At least that's my take on this. Frank

[Bad Water Bill]

IIRC MANY years ago someone took his case to court (yes to the SCOTUS)and all charges were dismissed.

I think his name was MIRANDA.

What happened here?

Quoting from the article:
Without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda
warnings, petitioner voluntarily answered the questions
of a police officer who was investigating a murder.

Without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warning

At what point can your words be recorded and used against you without you having been notified of your rights?

[searcher4851]

His words weren't used against him, his silence was.
As he was not "in custody" no Miranda warning was required. He was there voluntarily.
Proper course of action would have been for him to answer NO questions. He should have asked if he was under arrest, when told no, he should have asked if he was free to leave. At that point the police will either charge him or tell him yes, he is free to leave.
These are simple concepts, and rights that every citizen should know. As a holder of these rights, it is incumbent upon the holder of these rights to know them and exercise them. It's all part of informed self defense. Unfortunately, in this day and age, you have to be able to not only defend yourself from the bad guys, you have to be able to defend yourself from the authorities as well, even when innocent. Even the simplest statement can be misconstrued, and end up being used against you. Lawyers are paid to twist words to serve THEIR purposes, depending on which side of the case they are on.
JMHO, rant over.

[KCSO]

Without being placed in custody!!! If you are not under arrest as defined by the law you have nothing to invoke. His rights were not violated according to current law.

[popper]

Mandatory Miranda is NOT required anymore.

[hardware]

A belated thank you to everyone who helped clarify this situation.

[fatnhappy]

Without being placed in custody!!! If you are not under arrest as defined by the law you have nothing to invoke. His rights were not violated according to current law.

Not exactly. He absolutely can invoke his rights against self incrimination prior to arrest. This decision merely places the onus for invoking them on the suspect. As I'm sure you well know Miranda only applies under 2 conditions: the individual is in custody or under interrogation. Which is why suspects are frequently "interviewed", statements (read confessions) taken, released, then arrested. It's a police process designed specifically to defeat the need for miranda warnings since all statements from the original interview would be admissable. Being released is demonstrable proof the suspect was never in custody and therefore not entitled to the benefit of a miranda warning.

frankly I believe this decision to be frought with the opportunity for abuse.
Rights are like muscles, they atrophy if not exercised.

[gbrown]

You gotta verbally invoke your rights to be correct. Silence is not "Stating your rights." As a former LEO, if they didn't "Invoke, verbally", they were still fair game. You can argue all day long, but it has to be a conscious, knowing act. The Miranda Warning gives them their options. They must choose and make a conscious decision of it. By remaining silent, they are not making decisions. The Miranda tells the LEO how to handle the situation. If there is no decision on the part to the perp, the LEO is free to explore or go wherever.

[1Shirt]

To many lawyers, to little common sense. We often forget that judges are lawyers!
1Shirt!