So the US Supreme Court ruled that one must actively invoke one's "right to remain silent" in order for law enforcement to be required to stop questioning. Basically you can't just say nothing and remain silent and assume that agencies must stop questioning or interrogating you, and that if you do say anything it can't be used in court. You must notify them (verbally, in writing, whatever) that you are invoking your "Miranda Right" to remain silent. Just like you must request to see a lawyer if that is what you wish.
I don't find this that big a deal and think it is a perfectly acceptable finding. It also means that once you invoke it the questioning must stop in order to follow the law. In the past, from what I have seen police have been able to continue to question you even if you do state your wish to remain silent.
Now I know that some here that are politically divisive will jump on the politics of the Justices involved but I don't want this thread to drive down the "politics hole" that many discussions go down. This isn't about "damned lib'rul's" or "damned conservatives" or anything like that.
I am just curious how people here view this ruling, do you agree with it or if you disagree, why?
From The Washington Post story linked above:
In the case about Miranda rights, suspect Van Chester Thompkins remained mostly silent for three hours of interrogation after reading and being told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney. He neither acknowledged that he was willing to talk nor that he wanted questioning to stop.
But detectives persisted in what one called mostly a "monologue" until asking Thompkins whether he believed in God. When asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins looked away and answered, "Yes."
The statement was used against him, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said that Thompkins's silence for two hours and 45 minutes of the interrogation "offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers: Thompkins did not wish to waive his rights."
But Kennedy said it was not clear enough. "If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions, or he could have unambiguously involved his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," wrote Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. "The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver."