CalCCW  

Go Back   CalCCW > Concealed Carry in California > Legal
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Legal Discuss legal issues of California CCW

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 11:40 AM
NorCalChuck's Avatar
NorCalChuck NorCalChuck is offline
Still special, just a lot older
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mendocino
Posts: 1,026
Default JUN 17, 2013 - US SUPREME COURT: Defendant MUST explicitly invoke 5th Amendment Right

This HUGE: If you simply remain silent, it will be construed as a sign of guilt.

June 17, 2013 - The United States Supreme Court has ruled that simply remaining silent does NOT protect an individual's right against Self Incrimination. You MUST verbalize that you are invoking protection under the 5th Amendment's right against self incrimination. If you do not explicitly invoke the 5th Amendment, your silence will be construed as a sign of guilt.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-246_7l48.pdf

Without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, petitioner voluntarily answered the questions of a police officer who was investigating a murder. But petitioner balked when the officer asked whether a ballistics test would show that the shell casings found at the crime scene would match petitioner’s shotgun. Petitioner was subsequently charged with murder, and at trial prosecutors argued that his reaction to the officer’s question suggested that he was guilty. Petitioner claims that this argument violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against selfincrimination in response to the officer’s question. It has long been settled that the privilege “generally is not selfexecuting” and that a witness who desires its protection “‘must claim it.’”

This makes me wonder if a pre-printed card would be accepted?
Does this mean that you have to read the card out loud to the officer?

A very interesting turn of events.

Last edited by NorCalChuck : 06-18-2013 at 11:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 11:56 AM
Looneybin's Avatar
Looneybin Looneybin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Fresno
Posts: 349
Default

Jees, what's next, guilty until proven innocent?
WTF is going on with this supreme court?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 12:20 PM
mark's Avatar
mark mark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ridgecrest
Posts: 6,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Looneybin View Post
Jees, what's next, guilty until proven innocent?
WTF is going on with this supreme court?
it just isn't the scotus, it's the entire administration, our Constitutional Rights are being eroded at a pace never seen before

Mao Tse Tung said that America would be taken over without firing a shot, it is happening now
__________________
Non Timebo Mala

Disclosure is Bliss
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 12:30 PM
eamxr400's Avatar
eamxr400 eamxr400 is offline
SB Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Phelan
Posts: 990
Default

Actually, this could work in our favor. Now you can have any kind of rifle you want with any ammo capacity you want, and all you have to do is verbally invoke that you are excersizing your 2nd Amendment right.

Yea, I know, not likely to happen.

How about this, can you invoke your 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights together and talk all you want, and not have that information used against you?

Alright, I'll quite being a smart ***** now.

Eric
__________________
"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt... I am for a government regorously frugal and simple." - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 12:36 PM
mark's Avatar
mark mark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ridgecrest
Posts: 6,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eamxr400 View Post
....? How about this, can you invoke your 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights together and talk all you want, and not have that information used against you?.....
Eric
classic
__________________
Non Timebo Mala

Disclosure is Bliss
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 12:40 PM
tailslide's Avatar
tailslide tailslide is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Orangevale
Posts: 1,396
Default

"Second, a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary."

Privilege? It's not a "privilege", it's a right. SCOTUS is completely out of control.
__________________
"Speak softly and carry a big 1911" - Teddy Browning

"“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Isaac Asimov

“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition” -- Rudyard Kipling.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2013, 12:47 PM
ArmyofMike's Avatar
ArmyofMike ArmyofMike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fresno
Posts: 267
Default

Will they have to change the Miranda Rights verbiage? i.e. "You have the right to remain silent..." <- Therefore, now admitting guilt??
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2013, 10:30 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Sacramento Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Surrounded by 5 grandkids
Posts: 571
Default

The basic mistake here is a violation of Rule #1. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.

I know they're nice people and they have a job to do, but...
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 04:07 PM
hoofnit hoofnit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: La Grange
Posts: 10
Default Invoke then say nothing

Long, but worthwhile..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Last edited by hoofnit : 06-25-2013 at 04:08 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 05:11 PM
eapls2708 eapls2708 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Placerville
Posts: 339
Default

Wow, At first blush I'm in agreement with all of the above comments. But then I looked to see who was in the majority and who dissented.

If my fist take on the issue, that this is a ruling that is upside down when compared to the Bill of Rights, then I must have stepped into the twilight zone because it would be the first time that I find myself on the other side of an issue in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all agree, and the first time that I am on the same side as Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Since that has, heretofore been an impossibility, I must be missing something. Gonna have to read this one front to back.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 06:38 PM
JackOfClubs's Avatar
JackOfClubs JackOfClubs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Orange
Posts: 224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The basic mistake here is a violation of Rule #1. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.
Actually, I would say the basic mistake is "Don't murder people that invite you to parties." But that's just me.

This case is nothing new and really isn't worth getting excited over. The principle that you have to explicitly invoke the 5th amendment goes back to the Minnesaota v Murphy case from 1984. The court outlines various exceptions to that principle and shows why the guy doesn't qualify. The bottom line is:

"Petitioner cannot benefit from that principle because it is undisputed that his interview with police was voluntary.... The critical question is whether, under the “circumstances” of this case, petitioner was deprived of the ability to voluntarily invoke the Fifth Amendment. He was not...." [p. 6]

After the initial interview, the police decided they did not have sufficient grounds to charge him. It was only after other evidence turned up that they went looking for him at which time he ran away. They onyl caught him 14 years later, living under an assumed name. I think any reasonable person would conclude that his rights were not violated.
__________________
Resistance to tyrants is service to God.

Do not let us be infected by our own propaganda. --Screwtape

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the [Arms Act of 1878] depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. -- Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2013, 06:57 PM
mark's Avatar
mark mark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ridgecrest
Posts: 6,982
Default

in a nutshell, the thread can be summed up in five words : " don't shoot your mouth off "
__________________
Non Timebo Mala

Disclosure is Bliss
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2013, 10:33 AM
Rob P.'s Avatar
Rob P. Rob P. is offline
Thinks he's safe.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: in a very safe place
Posts: 1,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eapls2708 View Post
Wow, At first blush I'm in agreement with all of the above comments. But then I looked to see who was in the majority and who dissented.

If my fist take on the issue, that this is a ruling that is upside down when compared to the Bill of Rights, then I must have stepped into the twilight zone because it would be the first time that I find myself on the other side of an issue in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all agree, and the first time that I am on the same side as Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Since that has, heretofore been an impossibility, I must be missing something. Gonna have to read this one front to back.
The first thing you are missing is the knowledge that the Courts will ALWAYS do whatever they can to keep the convicted in prison. Even if they have to twist the law into knots or even make up a new interpretation of the law. (Which to my mind means it's ex post facto since before the court made it's "new" decision it wasn't criminal behavior...)
__________________

TRUCKS can TRAVEL near AND far
ROOT VEGETABLES are SHIPPED on LORRIES
ROADS are HARD and DUSTY
GRAVITY affects ALL things
TIME is ONLY a MATHEMATICAL theory.


Licensed California Attorney at Law
California CCW permit holder
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
Ventura County "approved list" CCW Instructor

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2013, 12:01 PM
mark's Avatar
mark mark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ridgecrest
Posts: 6,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
The first thing you are missing is the knowledge that the Courts will ALWAYS do whatever they can to keep the convicted in prison. Even if they have to twist the law into knots or even make up a new interpretation of the law. (Which to my mind means it's ex post facto since before the court made it's "new" decision it wasn't criminal behavior...)
+ 1
__________________
Non Timebo Mala

Disclosure is Bliss
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:30 PM
jdatbs jdatbs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverside
Posts: 18
Default

Hmmm.
This really isn't news. I don't even know why they published this opinion. This has been the law forever.
Let's look at what happened to poor Mr. Salinas.
First, a police officer, or detective, talks to Mr. Salinas. They are at the police station.
Second: Mr. Salinas is not in custody. This is the crux of the case. Only suspects "in custody" have to be advised of their Miranda rights and have to waive those rights expressly or impliedly in order for their subsequent statements to be admitted in court against them.
Third, he fails to answer a pretty significant question. He doesn't say "I take the fifth," or any other version of the invocation. He just clams up. We are left to speculate why, although guilt is a pretty good inference if he is still conscious and alert.
So the state of Texas is free to allege that this silence means that Mr. Salinas had what is known as "consciousness of guilt." The jury could agree, or disagree. Apparently they agreed.
But guys...this ain't news. It's just a restatement of what the law has been ever since the fifth amendment right to silence has been applied to the states.
Lesson: If the police talk to you, and you agree to answer questions, you are still free to stop at any time. If you do not wish to answer a specific question on fifth amendment grounds, just say so. There are no magic words. "I take the fifth" is good enough. Everyone knows what it means!!!
Now...Mr. Salinas killed two people. This appeal is about his refusal to answer a question, which he had a right to refuse to answer. But he didn't assert that right. The police weren't reading minds that day. So he got what he got. But in spite of the apparent simplicity of the answer to this appeal, this was a 5-4 decision by the court. And look who dissented: Breyer (Clinton appointee), Ginsburg (Carter appointee), Sotomayor, and Kagan (both Obama appointees). Do you see what they are trying to do? And we're stuck with them. We all had better hope and pray that no more spots open up on this court while the socialist is still president.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
©2007-2010 CalCCW.com