Rgiht to remain silent?

[nojames]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan
I was reading today's news in my area.

I know this for fact once you are under arrest and you have the right to lawyer and stay silent.

This part is very gray: If you are not under arrest and officers can ask you any questions and you have two options one is not to answer and two is to answer the questions.

Now if you answer to some questions and some of your answers might get you arrested. However the answers you have given can be used against you. The gray area I am wondering about is what kind of questions can be ask to avoid entrapment.

 

[justalayman]

entrapment has nothing to do with this. Entrapment is where the police entice you to commit a crime that you would not have committed otherwise.

basically, you always have the right to keep your mouth shut short of providing your name.

 

[swalsh411]

If the police think you've done something illegal, you can't talk your way out of getting in trouble and you won't get in any more trouble by not talking.

Clear enough?

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Your right to remain silent has nothing to do with whether you are under arrest or not. The right exists. If you chose not to invoke your right, then you are accountable. If they arrest you and want to question you, they must mirandize you.

Cops can lie, cajole, scam, befriend, pretend, or just about anything else you can think of to get you to talk yourself into jail.

They only thing they cant do is entrap you or break laws... so they cant hand you a sack of weed and tell you to go sell it then bust you for dealing weed. That would be entrapment. They can promise you on a stack of bibles that they arent cops they buy a sack of weed you are selling and bust you.


If you invoke your right to remain silent and they press and eventually get you to talk, you can move to suppress. But if you dont specifically invoke your rights, it's open season on you.

 

[swalsh411]

If they arrest you and want to question you, they must mirandize you.

Not entirely accurate. The must mirandize you if they want your statements to be used against you later in court. If you were arrested, the police decided before questioning that they didn't want to go after you, did not mirandize you, and then used statements you made to get leads on other people to investigate, that would be legal.

 

[CdwJava]

Not entirely accurate. The must mirandize you if they want your statements to be used against you later in court. If you were arrested, the police decided before questioning that they didn't want to go after you, did not mirandize you, and then used statements you made to get leads on other people to investigate, that would be legal.

Not entirely true, at least not in my state (and Steven's). Here, if we continue to interview someone after they invoke Miranda, we can get in a wee bit of trouble. There used to be a thought that the police could continue interrogations for the reason you state. However, case law has changed this and officers that ignore Miranda invocations could find themselves personally liable in a civil suit. The CA Supreme Court has gone so far as to characterize such continued interrogations as "unethical conduct" that "must be strongly disapproved."

Even the 9th Circuit has also permitted personal suits against officers for these violations, and the US Supreme Court has not ruled it out. Fortunately, there appears to be no ruling stating that such an intentional violation is cause for a 1983 action, but that may be in the future.

 

[TheGeekess]

And the SCOTUS decided this week that the person being interviewed has to invoke their Miranda rights for them to be honored.

 

[nojames]

Let me put it this way.

With out warning can the police use any answers against you even though you are not a suspect yet.

With warning all answers can be used against you.

Either way suspect or not you can end up on the losing end of the stick this is the way I see it.

Its like saying not as a suspect, I stole the candy versus as a suspect , I stole the candy.

 

[swalsh411]

Not entirely true, at least not in my state (and Steven's). Here, if we continue to interview someone after they invoke Miranda, we can get in a wee bit of trouble.

Well that’s good to know but in my example the police did not read the suspect their miranda rights and the suspect did not make any statement that they wished to remain silent. Under those circumstances, my understanding is that any answers given in an interrogation after an arrest could not be used against that person in court, but their answers could be used to develop leads on other suspects.

 

[justalayman]

Let me put it this way.

With out warning can the police use any answers against you even though you are not a suspect yet.

With warning all answers can be used against you.

Either way suspect or not you can end up on the losing end of the stick this is the way I see it.

Its like saying not as a suspect, I stole the candy versus as a suspect , I stole the candy.

the point is: you don't have to say you stole the candy at anytime.

 

[BOR]

Not entirely true, at least not in my state (and Steven's). Here, if we continue to interview someone after they invoke Miranda, we can get in a wee bit of trouble. There used to be a thought that the police could continue interrogations for the reason you state. However, case law has changed this and officers that ignore Miranda invocations could find themselves personally liable in a civil suit. The CA Supreme Court has gone so far as to characterize such continued interrogations as "unethical conduct" that "must be strongly disapproved."

Even the 9th Circuit has also permitted personal suits against officers for these violations, and the US Supreme Court has not ruled it out. Fortunately, there appears to be no ruling stating that such an intentional violation is cause for a 1983 action, but that may be in the future.

What was the basis for the rulings? Were they characterized as an Unreasonable seizure or a DP violation?

 

[CdwJava]

Let me put it this way.

With out warning can the police use any answers against you even though you are not a suspect yet.

Sure. As long as you are not under arrest or detained using force equivalent to a custodial arrest, most answers you provide can generally be used against you should the state wish to do so even without a Miranda warning.

With warning all answers can be used against you.

Provided the suspect agrees to speak.

Either way suspect or not you can end up on the losing end of the stick this is the way I see it.

It is always possible.

Its like saying not as a suspect, I stole the candy versus as a suspect , I stole the candy.

The difference is whether or not the contact is an arrest or not, and whether or not the contact necessitated the reading of Miranda and a voluntary waiver.

 

[CdwJava]

What was the basis for the rulings? Were they characterized as an Unreasonable seizure or a DP violation?

There are too many cases for me to read them all.

I can provide a list if you wish, but I see more than a half dozen cases references in CPOLS on the issue. At my end of the spectrum,"Why" the rule exists is less important than the fact that it DOES exist.

 

[BOR]

There are too many cases for me to read them all.

I can provide a list if you wish, but I see more than a half dozen cases references in CPOLS on the issue. At my end of the spectrum,"Why" the rule exists is less important than the fact that it DOES exist.

If you have time, list a few. If they are not online I may look them up at the law library out of legal curiousity.

 

[nojames]

How about this Miranda warning is never given and you are not a suspect; the cop as you this question: Did you steal that candy?

your answer would be Yes I stole that candy.

Anyone can just made a statement which can be true or false. The only thing the officer has is a statement. Based upon that statement how can that officer is allowed to be judge or jury and place you under arrest where there is no other evidence is present and the only evidence is the statement.