SCOTUS Decides: Sanity Finally Returns to the Miranda Advisement

From the Washington Times.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must tell police explicitly that they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a major step towards sanity regarding the prior overbearing applications of Miranda v Arizona. It was previously incumbent upon law enforcement officers -- and those of you in law enforcement know of whence I speak and write -- to almost beg suspects NOT to talk to them.

The historic tri-pronged approach used to customarily apply in re Miranda admonishment:

1. Custodial

2. Interrogation

3. By a peace officer

Any one leg lacking does not require admonishment. . .

However, there have been so many exceptions and niche/boutique and abundantly convoluted and conflicting opinions issued following the original Miranda ruling, that departments became collectively gun-shy and applied Miranda in ridiculous ways -- which resulted in clear and obvious suspects being released and, worse, not only treated with stellar deference (look at OJ Simpson: questioned for perhaps 2.35 seconds by fearful LAPD detectives!) but not even questioned at all!

This new SCOTUS ruling essentially says: Look, you DON'T have to tell people to shut up!

The very disappointing aspect of the decison: it was a 5 - 4 ruling.

Not shockingly, the newest justice, Mexican female Sonia Sotomayor -- who has said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" -- wrote, in dissent for the court's Leftists, that the new ruling "turns Miranda upside down":

Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

My gosh. I concur with her! If you wish to remain silent you should SAY SO. No response should logically = keep on questioning!

If you are that stupid, after all these years, then there should be consequences. If you are literally mentally defective, then that will out at arraignment. Capacity is another issue entirely.

Cops should not have to "tippy-toe" around common sense!

Today, oddly enough, logic ruled the day.

But wait! Won't this also affect terrorists as well? Why yes, it will.

That is, of course, until Mr Obama can further stack SCOTUS. And stack he will.

BZ