Eclipsed by the recent rulings for DOMA and Prop 8 the Supreme Court has ruled that in order for your right to remain silent to take effect you need to tell them you're invoking it.
This wouldn't exactly be anything new, as evidenced by this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27405223/u.s.-supreme-court-trims-miranda-rights, except that 2 years ago it only applied to those who had been read their miranda rights. Now, whether you're a suspect or not you need to let the police know you're invoking the right to remain silent.
If you want to invoke your constitutional right to remain silent, youd better not be silent.
Thats the circular logic of a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that simply remaining silent is not enough to protect American citizens from self-incrimination. Though its received scant media attention, the decision has serious implications for criminal prosecutions, legal experts say. It came on June 17 in Salinas v. Texas, which concerned the nature of police questioning in a 20-year-old murder investigation that led to the conviction of a Houston man.
In January 1993, Genovevo Salinas was brought in for police questioning about the murder of two brothers. Police found shotgun shell casings at the scene, and Salinas -- who was not arrested and not read his Miranda rights -- agreed to let police inspect his shotgun. When police asked if the shells would match his shotgun, Salinas did not answer the question. He stayed silent, looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet and bit his bottom lip.
Salinas was later arrested on an unrelated traffic warrant, at which time police decided there was enough evidence to charge him with the murders. Salinas did not testify at the trial, but his reaction to police questioning -- the fidgeting, lip-biting, etc. -- was used as evidence. In other words, Salinas silence was used against him, a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, or so he thought.
The Supreme Court had previously held that mere silence is not sufficient for a suspect to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The difference here is that Salinas was not a suspect at the time he went silent; he was merely a witness brought in for questioning.
tl/dr Salinas' neighbor was shot and killed, Salinas was brought in for questioning, not as a suspect, and when they started asking the right questions he remained silent and got fidgety. They later convicted him of murder and used his reactions to their questioning as evidence of his guilt.
He appeals to the courts that they violated his right to remain silent by using such evidence against him and the Supreme Court rules that because he didn't say he was invoking his right to remain silent it doesn't matter.
I always thought, mostly because of tv, that you always had to yell in the most ghetto voice you can muster, "I PLEAD DA 5th!" so I guess I have no problem with this, just tell them you're invoking that right. What are your thoughts?