Can Others In the Bill of Rights Be Far Behind?
In early June, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the parameters of the Miranda decision (requiring the familiar warning that begins "You have the right to remain silent."), asserting that criminal suspects must now explicitly state to police that they're invoking their right to remain silent. Dissenting justices wrote that the decision turns Miranda "upside down."
The Court ruled 5-4 that a Michigan man who incriminated himself in a killing after more than two hours of silence in the face of police interrogation gave up his right to remain silent when he said he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting.
The Court ruled that when police give a Miranda warning understood by the suspect, and the suspect follows it with an uncoerced and incriminating statement, that statement can be used at trial against the accused.
Hours of Questioning
Van Chester Thompkins was mostly silent during his nearly three hours of questioning. After receiving his Miranda warning that he had the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, Thompkins didn't state that he wanted the interrogation to stop, nor did he state that he was willing to talk. He simply kept his mouth shut.
Police officers continued to question him; at one point asking the suspect if he believed in God. A detective asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" "Yes," replied Thompkins - a statement used against him in a trial that ended in his conviction for killing Samuel Morris.
Obvious Sign Ignored
The court's ruling turns the Miranda warning around, putting the burden of protecting the right to silence and the right to a lawyer on the defendant in police custody.
By not speaking, Thompkins appeared to be invoking the protections of the Miranda warning. His decision not to speak could have been taken as an obvious sign that he'd chosen to remain silent, as was his right. Yet police ignored the silence and the sign for hours and have now been rewarded for it by the Court.
The Court is stating that the protections offered in a Miranda warning can be implicitly surrendered, but must be explicitly invoked.
The Court has essentially given police license to question a silent suspect until the person finally speaks.
In the original Miranda ruling, the Court wrote that "a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings or simply from the fact that a confession was eventually obtained."
Endangered Exclusionary Rule
This dramatic reworking of Miranda causes many to wonder if this Court intends to further erode the protections of the exclusionary rule.
Simply stated, the exclusionary rule is: any evidence illegally obtained by police cannot be used in court against the suspect.
The rule protects a defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Court ate away at the rule last year when it decided that illegally obtained evidence could be used by the prosecution if police made a mistake, rather than deliberately broke the law in their improper search or seizure.
Critics of the 2009 ruling narrowing the exclusionary rule noted that the rule simply excludes evidence the police never would have obtained if they had obeyed the Constitution.
How the Decisions Apply
Defenders of the Constitution are almost universal in their condemnation of these decisions by the Court and how they will adversely affect people accused of crimes.
If you or a loved one faces criminal charges, contact a New York criminal defense lawyer who will assess the facts of your case, as well evaluate the legality of any evidence obtained by police, and then advise you of your legal options. A criminal defense attorney uses the law to protect your rights and to protect your freedom.
