Salina vs Texas, 'New' changes to 5th Amendment

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by byof_america (1346 posts) -


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.


http://www.ibtimes.com/supreme-court-self-incrimination-ruling-no-right-remain-silent-unless-you-speak-1324515

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?

#2 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Don't really have any thoughts, I've known this for a while now.
#3 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

I have no problem with this.

#4 Posted by BMD004 (5883 posts) -
Sounds reasonable... but why do the police not tell you that you have to specifically state that you wish to remain silent? They tell you that you have the right, but don't tell you that you have to take specific steps to legally exercise that right.
#5 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -
[QUOTE="BMD004"]Sounds reasonable... but why do the police not tell you that you have to specifically state that you wish to remain silent? They tell you that you have the right, but don't tell you that you have to take specific steps to legally exercise that right.

Because the police want you to talk and incriminate yourself.
#6 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4117 posts) -

This literally makes no sense. What if you just refuse to talk at all? Do they have a right to beat it out of you until you tell them you're using your right to remain silent? What next? you have to actually tell the police that you're invoking your right to no illegal searches and seizures? It's stupid and seems like a huge waste of time. If they're not talking, they're obviosuly exercising their right to remian silent, as remianing silent is exactly what they're doing.

#7 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

This literally makes no sense. What if you just refuse to talk at all? Do they have a right to beat it out of you until you tell them you're using your right to remain silent? What next? you have to actually tell the police that you're invoking your right to no illegal searches and seizures? It's stupid and seems like a huge waste of time. If they're not talking, they're obviosuly exercising their right to remian silent, as remianing silent is exactly what they're doing.

Toxic-Seahorse
Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL
#8 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

This literally makes no sense. What if you just refuse to talk at all? Do they have a right to beat it out of you until you tell them you're using your right to remain silent? What next? you have to actually tell the police that you're invoking your right to no illegal searches and seizures? It's stupid and seems like a huge waste of time. If they're not talking, they're obviosuly exercising their right to remian silent, as remianing silent is exactly what they're doing.

Fightingfan

Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

#9 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

This literally makes no sense. What if you just refuse to talk at all? Do they have a right to beat it out of you until you tell them you're using your right to remain silent? What next? you have to actually tell the police that you're invoking your right to no illegal searches and seizures? It's stupid and seems like a huge waste of time. If they're not talking, they're obviosuly exercising their right to remian silent, as remianing silent is exactly what they're doing.

THE_DRUGGIE

Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

And a disorderly conduct, cops always love that one.
#10 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18355 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

This literally makes no sense. What if you just refuse to talk at all? Do they have a right to beat it out of you until you tell them you're using your right to remain silent? What next? you have to actually tell the police that you're invoking your right to no illegal searches and seizures? It's stupid and seems like a huge waste of time. If they're not talking, they're obviosuly exercising their right to remian silent, as remianing silent is exactly what they're doing.

THE_DRUGGIE

Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

This.. basically your in trouble either way.. talk or don't talk they will do as they pleas.
#11 Posted by byof_america (1346 posts) -
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="BMD004"]Sounds reasonable... but why do the police not tell you that you have to specifically state that you wish to remain silent? They tell you that you have the right, but don't tell you that you have to take specific steps to legally exercise that right.

Because the police want you to talk and incriminate yourself.

Which is interesting, because I remember looking on a sight that said 13 men who have now been found innocent have already served 279 years in prison altogether. Another article on the 5th amendment talked about how innocent people could be intimidated or coerced into confession of crimes they didn't commit.
#12 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL Person0

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

And a disorderly conduct, cops always love that one.

Oh man, they throw those around like candy.

#13 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

This literally makes no sense. What if you just refuse to talk at all? Do they have a right to beat it out of you until you tell them you're using your right to remain silent? What next? you have to actually tell the police that you're invoking your right to no illegal searches and seizures? It's stupid and seems like a huge waste of time. If they're not talking, they're obviosuly exercising their right to remian silent, as remianing silent is exactly what they're doing.

THE_DRUGGIE

Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

You do it the proper way all charges will be dropped.
#14 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Yes you're suppose to say "I refuse searches" if they search you illegally and they find something to incriminate you will be able to walk free. If you give implied consent you're SOL Fightingfan

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

You do it the proper way all charges will be dropped.

Well yeah, but that involves getting a smack or two from a nightstick.

#15 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -
[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

Fightingfan

And a disorderly conduct, cops always love that one.

Oh man, they throw those around like candy.

Well it is the catch all charge. Pretty much no matter what you can be charged with that.
#16 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -
[QUOTE="byof_america"][QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="BMD004"]Sounds reasonable... but why do the police not tell you that you have to specifically state that you wish to remain silent? They tell you that you have the right, but don't tell you that you have to take specific steps to legally exercise that right.

Because the police want you to talk and incriminate yourself.

Which is interesting, because I remember looking on a sight that said 13 men who have now been found innocent have already served 279 years in prison altogether. Another article on the 5th amendment talked about how innocent people could be intimidated or coerced into confession of crimes they didn't commit.

And thats why talking to cops is never a good idea. Pleading the 5th and asking for a lawyer is about as much as you should ever say to a cop. Anyways its spelled out in your Miranda rights "anything you say can and will be used against you" against you not to help you.
#17 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="byof_america"][QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="BMD004"]Sounds reasonable... but why do the police not tell you that you have to specifically state that you wish to remain silent? They tell you that you have the right, but don't tell you that you have to take specific steps to legally exercise that right.

Because the police want you to talk and incriminate yourself.

Which is interesting, because I remember looking on a sight that said 13 men who have now been found innocent have already served 279 years in prison altogether. Another article on the 5th amendment talked about how innocent people could be intimidated or coerced into confession of crimes they didn't commit.

I saw a documentary where a retarded boy did like 20 years because the city just someone to blame for a murder of some young lady. The police used 5+ hours of constant questioning and lead on questions to get a conviction. Turned out the boy did a false confession to stop the harassment as he just wanted to go home. I think it's the first time America ever had a "false confession" this was in the 1990s.
#18 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But if you tell them you refuse, then you get a resisting arrest charge when they drag you to the ground and beat you with billy clubs.

THE_DRUGGIE

You do it the proper way all charges will be dropped.

Well yeah, but that involves getting a smack or two from a nightstick.

Bro you'll be rich like Rodney King.
#19 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] You do it the proper way all charges will be dropped. Fightingfan

Well yeah, but that involves getting a smack or two from a nightstick.

Bro you'll be rich like Rodney King.

But I don't wanna waste it on the drugs and the bad press.

#20 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Well yeah, but that involves getting a smack or two from a nightstick.

THE_DRUGGIE

Bro you'll be rich like Rodney King.

But I don't wanna waste it on the drugs and the bad press.

Spend it on wet cat

#21 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Bro you'll be rich like Rodney King. Fightingfan

But I don't wanna waste it on the drugs and the bad press.

Spend it on wet cat

Dogs are better.

#22 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But I don't wanna waste it on the drugs and the bad press.

THE_DRUGGIE

Spend it on wet cat

Dogs are better.

Richards?
#23 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24961 posts) -

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Spend it on wet cat

Fightingfan

Dogs are better.

Richards?

Don't you dare bring Nixon into this.

#24 Posted by lamprey263 (23096 posts) -
this ruling is confusing somewhat, he didn't say anything but his demeanor was used against him, so how does pleading the 5th make ones demeanor any less relevant?