SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - To plead the Fifth, one must actually plead the Fifth

Posted: Jun 01 2010 11:12 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_miranda_rights

The gist: The Supreme Court ruled that remaining silent during an interrogation does not imply invocation of 5th Amenendment rights. You actually have to refuse interrogation.

I'm fine with this. You should know to invoke the 5th Amendment. If you don't, you're probably guilty and you're undoubtedly an idiot. There are three different Law & Order programs and counting reruns, it's on pretty much 24/7. And at least once per episode, someone invokes their right to remain silent. Shame on you if you don't.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 11:31 am

I learned from television that the Fifth is never implied.

ALSO:

Posted: Jun 01 2010 02:01 pm

Isn't the fifth amendment among what is considered the part of the constitution that outlines basic human rights, unable to be denied or circumvented under any circumstance? It's not something you should have to announce before it kicks in, right?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2010 02:21 pm

Pandajuice wrote:

Isn't the fifth amendment among what is considered the part of the constitution that outlines basic human rights, unable to be denied or circumvented under any circumstance? It's not something you should have to announce before it kicks in, right?

They're specifically talking about the "right to remain silent", which is an extension of the right against self-incrimination. And no, the right can't be taken away, but that one you can give up freely. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but you can volunteer to do so. By agreeing to speak to the police, you're pretty much waiving that right. That's what the Miranda warnings are, mostly, it's telling you that by speaking to police while under arrest, you're waiving certain rights.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 02:28 pm

Yeah, you are told when you are arrested that you are not compelled to incriminate yourself and you are asked if you understand those rights. Until you say that you do understand those rights, any testimonial evidence received from you or received as a result of your testimony is inadmissable.

In some states, the Miranda Rights include a reminder than you may invoke your rights at any time after being arrested, even if you initially agree to cooperate with police. But you have to say something. Whether it's "I'm done" or "I want a lawyer" or "I plead the fifth", you have to give definite indication that you no longer wish to cooperate or they will keep grilling you until you crack.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 02:32 pm

What if one is mute and those arresting him do not know sign language? Razz

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2010 02:35 pm

Fun fact: You don't have to be Mirandized if the police aren't asking you questions. I've heard stories of police officers intentionally not Mirandizing, intentionally not asking any questions, and having suspects blurt stuff out because they thought it wouldn't be admissible.

The second they ask a question, though, even if it's "How's the weather?", they need Miranda.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 04:17 pm

Can I plead the fifth of Jack?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2010 04:36 pm

Crazy_Bastard wrote:

What if one is mute and those arresting him do not know sign language? Razz

Serious answer to smartass question:

If any sort of language barrier exists, the officer can't talk to the suspect until an official interpreter is called in and his rights are read in that language, or in the case of someone mute, signed to him.

You don't need to read Miranda to someone to arrest them. Just when you question them.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 07:57 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun fact: You don't have to be Mirandized if the police aren't asking you questions. I've heard stories of police officers intentionally not Mirandizing, intentionally not asking any questions, and having suspects blurt stuff out because they thought it wouldn't be admissible.

The second they ask a question, though, even if it's "How's the weather?", they need Miranda.

This. Syd noted the ubiquity of L&O, and this has been a large plot point on multiple episodes on multiple series. That's how I learned about it, as a matter of fact.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2010 08:25 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun fact: You don't have to be Mirandized if the police aren't asking you questions. I've heard stories of police officers intentionally not Mirandizing, intentionally not asking any questions, and having suspects blurt stuff out because they thought it wouldn't be admissible.

The second they ask a question, though, even if it's "How's the weather?", they need Miranda.

This. Syd noted the ubiquity of L&O, and this has been a large plot point on multiple episodes on multiple series. That's how I learned about it, as a matter of fact.

Reliance on TV series for your legal advice can be problematic, however. L&O tries to maintain a semblance of realism, but the laws are different from state to state, never mind the fictionalized New York the series takes place in.

On top of that, cops -know- people have a distorted view of the legal system from TV, and abuse that. They watch Law and Order too. Remember, a large part of a police officer's job is finding ways around the 4th and 5th amendment.

That said...well, yes. The Miranda rights are so well ingrained in popular culture that everyone should know them by heart by now. Really, if you're arrested, the best thing you can do is shut up until you get an attorney there.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 08:27 pm

^ Oh I know; I wouldn't rely on the show for advice. Merely noting that that's where the phenomenon first came to my attention. Until that episode, I had (like many others) assumed that you had to be Mirandized on arrest, not upon questioning.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 10:18 pm

i have never seen an episode of L&O

Posted: Jun 01 2010 10:30 pm

Quote:

You don't need to read Miranda to someone to arrest them. Just when you question them.

Quote:

The second they ask a question, though, even if it's "How's the weather?", they need Miranda.

False. Miranda Warnings are only required for "custodial interrogations" and questions designed to elicit information or lead to evidence that may be admissible in a trial against the Defendant/suspect. So the person must, (1) be in custody and (2) be interrogated (i.e. asked questions designed to elicit admissible evidence). Once the person is in "custody" (i put quotation marks because what is and is not custody for Fifth Amendment purposes is difficult to determine) if the officers don't Mirandize him/her any statements are inadmissible in trial and so is any evidence gained from those statements. So yes, officers do have to Mirandize once the person is in "custody" or risk having the suspect make incriminating statements and not be able to use them.

Posted: Jun 01 2010 10:37 pm

didnt cracked.com have an article about this/

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 01 2010 10:56 pm

Cpt. Fantastic wrote:

Quote:

You don't need to read Miranda to someone to arrest them. Just when you question them.

Quote:

The second they ask a question, though, even if it's "How's the weather?", they need Miranda.

False. Miranda Warnings are only required for "custodial interrogations" and questions designed to elicit information or lead to evidence that may be admissible in a trial against the Defendant/suspect. So the person must, (1) be in custody and (2) be interrogated (i.e. asked questions designed to elicit admissible evidence). Once the person is in "custody" (i put quotation marks because what is and is not custody for Fifth Amendment purposes is difficult to determine) if the officers don't Mirandize him/her any statements are inadmissible in trial and so is any evidence gained from those statements. So yes, officers do have to Mirandize once the person is in "custody" or risk having the suspect make incriminating statements and not be able to use them.

Actually, what I said is true, though my second statement may have been a bit flippant. If the suspect is not being interrogated, they do not need to be Mirandized, and if the suspect volunteers information before being Mirandized it's admissible so long as no questions have been asked. And yes, I did mean "question them in custody", someone not under arrest doesn't need their rights read to them (though they still have them).

Police officers often do Mirandize people as they are arrested, but it isn't required (legally, it may be local procedure), and I have read about cases where the police intentionally did not in the hopes they blurted something out (and it held up).