Story A ruling by the Supreme Court stated you only have a right to remain silent if you verbally state you wish to invoke that right. If you just keep quiet without verbally invoking your right it doesn't count.
That's stupid. If you have to say the Miranda rights to tell people they have rights, then why should cops be able to go through your stuff because you don't know them?
Even if they read you your rights you still have to say you are invoking the right or it doesn't count.
Ok, but you still wouldn't have said anything to be used against you. I'm trying to envision a scenario where such a distinction would make a difference.
He didn't say anything but in the absence of words his body language was recorded and used as evidence in court. I'm not sure how fidgeting proves anything in court, but I suppose it could still be viewed as him being "compelled to be a witness against himself". Either way I thought it would be interesting to bring up for discussion.
It's not only stupid, it's very dangerous. I'm intrigued by the notion that he wasn't under arrest. I realise that where I live - Australia - is quite a bit different in its approach to criminal law than many jurisdictions in the US but I'm still intrigued. In my state the court would have said that the man was under arrest. But then in Australia (and the UK and NZ and similar) police are required to caution a person immediately they become a suspect in a criminal matter and not only on arrest. On arrest in my state a person is given their rights in much the same manner as a Miranda situation. You're losing your rights. "Am I under arrest?" is something anyone should be ready to ask if the police ask them to come down to the station. If the answer is no then no need to go along. If you get hauled along then you're under arrest regardless of what the police say to you. Be sure you have witnesses - good luck if you don't.
I think the op misunderstands slightly, the right to remain silent can not be taken away. You can refuse to speak as another poster said. However it has always been law that things can be infered from your silence. The usual case is where a person has an alibi, if he did not mention this during questioning then it may be suspicious if raised in court. In the end it depends on what the jury believe any way.
Spontaneous utterance. There are cases where confessions have been blurted out during routine interviews of persons not under arrest, but these can be recanted. Enjoy!
That is because we have the 4th Amendment, (originally the 6th) which governs seizures and the US SC has stated that an arrest is the "quintessential seizure", and although not clearly defined for Field purposes, such as was in the Salinas case, it is.
