Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

[Lil Bit Special]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060101378.html?hpid=topnews

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

This case never should have made it that far.

They advised him of his Miranda Warning, he waived and agreed to speak to the police, even stating he understood the advice of rights. He confesses to the shooting, but doesn't use a lot of words leading up to it. What's the issue here?

Seriously, does everyone need their hands held to the point that they can't even understand the basic concept of telling the police to Eff off if they don't want to talk to them, minutes after being told exactly that by the police?

[villain_the_foe]

Wow, thats hilarious. Im going to talk to prove my silence lmao.

[Boozer76]

Actually I view this as a bit of a detraction for police officers. If a suspect actually says I want to remain silent, the police can no longer ask questions at all?

[Thai Jet]

Actually I view this as a bit of a detraction for police officers. If a suspect actually says I want to remain silent, the police can no longer ask questions at all?

I would think so based on the story. I know if you ask for a lawyer the questioning stops.

[Thai Jet]

This case never should have made it that far.

They advised him of his Miranda Warning, he waived and agreed to speak to the police, even stating he understood the advice of rights. He confesses to the shooting, but doesn't use a lot of words leading up to it. What's the issue here?

Seriously, does everyone need their hands held to the point that they can't even understand the basic concept of telling the police to Eff off if they don't want to talk to them, minutes after being told exactly that by the police?

Exactly. He waived his rights then talked. WTF's the problem here ? The fact that the appeals court thru out this murdering POS's confession AND conviction is quite troubling in itself. Justice prevails and there's one less scumbag on the streets.

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

I would think so based on the story. I know if you ask for a lawyer the questioning stops.

Actually I view this as a bit of a detraction for police officers. If a suspect actually says I want to remain silent, the police can no longer ask questions at all?

Boozer, yes. If the suspect says he wants a lawyer, wants to talk to a lawyer first, or wants to remain silent which is usually " I don't have $hit to say to you" we can't ask a thing. Some talk and ask for a lawyer when they realize they're messing up.......gotta stop the second they ask. I have no problem with that at all.just the rules of the game.

That's why this case is so funny. They read his rights, he said he understood them, he agreed to talk, and never asked for an attorney...yet the cops were supposed to read his mind?

He should have done what some to say to me...."Go $&@) yourself pig"........ok then, I'll take that as a no. LOL

[neckdemon]

Boozer, yes. If the suspect says he wants a lawyer, wants to talk to a lawyer first, or wants to remain silent which is usually " I don't have $hit to say to you" we can't ask a thing. Some talk and ask for a lawyer when they realize they're messing up.......gotta stop the second they ask. I have no problem with that at all.just the rules of the game.

That's why this case is so funny. They read his rights, he said he understood them, he agreed to talk, and never asked for an attorney...yet the cops were supposed to read his mind?

He should have done what some to say to me...."Go $&@) yourself pig"........ok then, I'll take that as a no. LOL

lol....pretty much. the guy wa sjust trying to get off on some sort of technicality i think. a waste of time and taxpayer money it would seem. the guy confessed.......unless the confession came at the same time some long hard object was sticking out of his bum then this should have been a non-issue.

[LionelRichie]

They advised him of his Miranda Warning, he waived and agreed to speak to the police, even stating he understood the advice of rights. He confesses to the shooting, but doesn't use a lot of words leading up to it. What's the issue here?

What's really alarming here is that there are 4 supreme court judges who think that a child killer should be set free because after he waived his rights to an attorney he nodded his head and only answered yes and no.

It's not like they beat a confession out of him, he just wasn't verbose with his answers and all of a sudden he should go free? The murdered kid was somebody's son, and 4 supreme court judges are cool with turning the murderer loose? What has this country come to?