The change could lead to fewer stops, purportedly for minor traffic violations, with the actual intent of searching the driver’s car for contraband such as drugs or guns.
However, if you are asked, for example, “Where are you headed?” and you just don’t respond, the officer can now consider you uncooperative and possibly hostile, which legally changes what they are able to order you to do. Now they can remove you from the vehicle and handcuff you in the back of a patrol car.
Unresponsive silence is not exercising your right to remain silent. As above, you must actively express your exercise of that right.
The mere act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights.
Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that the act of being unresponsive is not a way to affirmatively assert your right to remain silent, even after having been read the Miranda warning and expressing an understanding of that warning.
Different state and local jurisdictions will handle this in different ways, I’m sure. It’s going to take me some time to find it, but I distinctly recall knowing that an officer during a traffic stop can take a person’s unresponsiveness to be a hostile act from at least one Audit the Audit video, and treat the person accordingly - at least in one jurisdiction.
I will continue to look for the specific thing, but Berghuis v. Thompkins is what makes it possible anywhere in the United States.
Hmm, you may be right. I can’t find any specific results that say if this also applies to traffic stops. I read it as when you are detained and in court but there may be no legal difference.
Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “ ‘right to cut off questioning.’ ” Mosley, supra, at 103 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 474). Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.
The prosecution therefore does not need to show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express. An “implicit waiver” of the “right to remain silent” is sufficient to admit a suspect’s statement into evidence.
Perhaps not relevant to the present discussion, but I find it notable that you must “unambiguously” assert your Miranda rights in order to claim them, but that you don’t have to unambiguously waive your Miranda rights. All you need to do for the justice system to consider your Miranda rights waived for a particular question is to answer it.
I would also mention that you have Miranda rights at all times, whether they have been read to you or not. Indeed, the only time those rights are required to be read to you is immediately before the police ask you questions about a crime you are suspected of committing. Considering that a “witness” statement can oh so easily make the witness into a suspect, it is highly possible for someone being questioned by the police for any reason to make a self-incriminating statement prior to being Mirandized.
However, if you are asked, for example, “Where are you headed?” and you just don’t respond, the officer can now consider you uncooperative and possibly hostile, which legally changes what they are able to order you to do. Now they can remove you from the vehicle and handcuff you in the back of a patrol car.
Unresponsive silence is not exercising your right to remain silent. As above, you must actively express your exercise of that right.
What law allows cops to detain you for not answering irrelevant questions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that the act of being unresponsive is not a way to affirmatively assert your right to remain silent, even after having been read the Miranda warning and expressing an understanding of that warning.
Different state and local jurisdictions will handle this in different ways, I’m sure. It’s going to take me some time to find it, but I distinctly recall knowing that an officer during a traffic stop can take a person’s unresponsiveness to be a hostile act from at least one Audit the Audit video, and treat the person accordingly - at least in one jurisdiction.
I will continue to look for the specific thing, but Berghuis v. Thompkins is what makes it possible anywhere in the United States.
Hmm, you may be right. I can’t find any specific results that say if this also applies to traffic stops. I read it as when you are detained and in court but there may be no legal difference.
Here’s the actual case ruling:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/
Excerpts:
Perhaps not relevant to the present discussion, but I find it notable that you must “unambiguously” assert your Miranda rights in order to claim them, but that you don’t have to unambiguously waive your Miranda rights. All you need to do for the justice system to consider your Miranda rights waived for a particular question is to answer it.
I would also mention that you have Miranda rights at all times, whether they have been read to you or not. Indeed, the only time those rights are required to be read to you is immediately before the police ask you questions about a crime you are suspected of committing. Considering that a “witness” statement can oh so easily make the witness into a suspect, it is highly possible for someone being questioned by the police for any reason to make a self-incriminating statement prior to being Mirandized.
tl;dr: Shut the fuck up.