My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
The 5th Amendment is a right, not a guarantee. It only protects you from being "compelled" into self-incrimination. If you choose to talk anyway, that's your own fault.
For the first time in my life I have to say I agree with Justice Breyer. You don't have to declare you're invoking your First Amendment right to religious freedom before praying, or shout to the world that you are invoking your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms before purchasing a firearm. SURELY, the Fifth Amendment should protect you whether or not the police tell you you have it, and whether or not you said you'd use it.
Well put. It's so weird how this one got so ideological when it doesn't seem that it had to be. Sure, Salinas probably was guilty, but that should not matter to the outcome of this case.
Mr. Beat right. I was especially shocked to see Scalia concur with the majority. With his history of extending our constitutional rights into the Modern Age, like he did with the 4th Amendment in _Kyllo,_ and the 2nd in the _Heller_ case, it's weird to think you wouldn't extend 5th Amendment protections to pre-custodial 'interrogations,' for lack of a better word.
City Beautiful I saw your new video on planting trees in urban areas. I've never even thought of the shade an evaporative cooling effects they provided before.
Check the text itself: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." If you volunteer information, that's not being "compelled." Even the Miranda Warning states that "anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law."
Terrible decision by the Supreme Court you shouldn't have to say your invoking your Fifth Amendment right to invoke it I don't know if this is a good example but think if you had to say I'm invoking My First Amendment right to free speech before you said anything controversial or the government could send you to jail for your ideas if they didn't like it
I fully agree as well this decision is terrible especially in context of other rights.:gun owners don't have to specifically say they have the right to bear firearms before a purchase, Minorities don't have to specifically say they are protected they are protected by the 14th amendment to receive equal treatment. women don't have to cite the 19th amendment to be able to vote; so by that logic citizens(Salinas was not even a suspect in this case when he was interrogated) should receive there 5th amendment rights without them having to specifically ask for it.
The US Supreme Court ruled this year that police can break into your house without a Warrant for Search signed by Judge if there was just cause. Now we know where that will go. They have just cause to execute mentally ill on the street for being homeless, and for shooting your dog or harming your child on a search in a house with the wrong address. Getting more like Germany. Just consider who is sniffing down Trumps back. We will be one big open air Gaza camp, complete with 800 FEMA camps with guillotines and caskets, rail cars being fitted with shackles in Oregon at this moment.. Sorry but "The Grand Old Flag" song just doesn't move me anymore.
I do not agree with this. If someone refuses to answer a certain question, it doesn't make them guilty. To me, this case opened the door for the 5th to influence the jury's decision without substantial evidence. This could still lead to guilty verdict.
@@iammrbeat Although, from the whole story, I actually doubt that even if the court ruled that they can’t his silence as guilty, they still got evidence he committed a crime. Only thing that’d be thrown off the table is the silence admitting guilt. I actually would argue he already incriminated himself before he became silent, for handing the police evidence before the arrest willingly. The only thing I disagree with is the silence being admission of guilt. I argue that hard evidence is needed, not tentative evidence. Sure, he’s guilty in this one, but what if that person was actually innocent and didn’t get interrogated before? Their silence couldn’t be used, still.
I would think an unfortunate side effect of this decision is that people won't want to talk to the police. Sounds to me like, unless you are under arrest, or under a legal order, don't voluntarily agree to any questioning.
Kind of ridiculous that a fundamental right to silence isn't granted just by being silent. You have the right to remain silent, yet when someone remains silent, they're incriminated based on the fact that they're silent? What in the world?
One of the most egregiously incorrect Supreme Court rulings in recent history. The best way to exercise your fifth amendment rights in a way that prevents prosecutors from using that against you now is to invoke your sixth amendment right to an attorney and say nothing else. If you repeat, “I want my attorney,” in response to any question, they can’t currently use that against you in court, and you aren’t incriminating yourself by either staying silent (which the prosecutor can argue indicates guilt) or by giving up potential details that may appear incriminating. Because of Salinas, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,” now also conceptually applies to the specific verbiage you used to invoke your fifth amendment rights, since the case establishes that there is a nebulously right and wrong way to invoke those rights, and that the wrong way can be used against you. However, since an ordinary citizen wouldn’t be able to foresee all the ways their invocation of the fifth amendment could be argued to be “wrong” under Salinas, it’s better to just do nothing but ask for your lawyer until they provide one to you.
Okay, so I looked at this a little more closely, because this was the most surprising result in this series so far, to me. Reading a bit of Alito's writing on this, it seems like Garner v. US could have warranted a mention - with approaching this issue from the other direction in mind, this seems like a much more ambiguous issue. I ultimately disagree with the decision and think that the majority was wrong to choose to approach it from the angle they did, I'm no longer certain that either the majority *or* the dissent was necessarily legally incorrect. I've found that it's very common for this to occur, where supreme court decisions which I disagree with to still be well-considered and reasonable.
In the Star Trek DS9 episode “tribunal” chief O’Brien is arrested for murder on trumped up charges. The authorities told him “you have the right to remain silent but doing may be construed as a sign of guilt”
its like self defense laws, you can stand your ground, but how is it going to look in court if you chase after a burgle firing to kill. I don't think the court would see that as "self defense," without significant proof. in the same respect, salines had volunteered, he also remained silent. the context of the situation was enough to infer guilt. his silence was not the key factor in his guilt the fact that the information lined up, was. to put it simply his silence was only good to warrant an investigation, not produce guilt. salinas could not be found guilt because he was silent, he could be found guilty because there was significant physical evidence. "he is not talking your honor, we think there is enough here to connect him to the crime, can we get a warrent *gives info about shotgun*" "ok *signs warrant*" the law is upheld, nor does it conflict with previous rulings.
President During this time: Barack Obama Chief Justice: John Roberts Argued: April 17, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013 Case Duration: 57 Days Decision: 5-4 in favor of Texas
Well, it's right there in the Miranda Warning! You have the right to remain silent, but if you choose not to use that right, that's your own fault. After all, "anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law" if you decide to speak up, anyway. While I agree that refusing to answer further questions isn't evidence of wrongdoing in itself, he had already incriminated himself voluntarily by offering up his gun, and even if he hadn't, his suspicious behavior was still enough to qualify as probable cause for a search warrant. The 5th Amendment doesn't protect you against search warrants, as they are not "Incriminating" in and of themselves.
How do i have a right to remain silent if i need to speak in order to say i have the right to remain silent. Makes no sense, just not saying anything is exercising my right to remain silent, by being silent....
Have you done the cases involving Nativity scenes in public parks and government buildings? Right there’s a issue with the 10 commandments being placed in a classroom and I think it’s similar to that situation
Many people are upset about this decision but the thing is The defendant wasn’t arrested nor was he made to go to the police He chose to go Like the courts still rule that if your arrested you do automatically have the right since your forcibly put there. Truthfully why are you even volunteering going there if you wanna use the 5th you can literally not go and if they do arrest for refusing you then you can fight that in court You could argue that you chose to forgo the 5th by willingly going Where as deciding not to go is actually invoking the 5th
This was a classic supreme court case of conservatives vs democratic the ones that were in favor of Texas we’re all conservatives the ones that were in all favor against Texas we’re all democratic. If you are not mirandized as in being under arrest or if you’re not aware of your rights and your remaining silent you should not be used as a sign of guilt. In this case it seems more likely that this person was in fact the murderer however there are cases where people have been innocently incriminated based on this stuff. The Supreme Court got it completely wrong here in my opinion.
Invoke in this context means to make clear. You invoke your 6th amendment right by asking for counsel. You invoke your 2nd by buying a gun. People just don't give you guns.
To invoke as in 'to cite' - to mention something as a reason why something has happened. As in, 'I'm telling you I have the right to shut up, and I plan to do so.'
Agreed! They always tell you anything you say can be used AGAINST you; never do they say it can be used in your defense. Other than asserting your right to an attorney, absolutely nothing you say to the police is to your benefit, even the truth.
@@Compucles You have to invoke it explicitly according to Berghuis v Thompkins. It's stupid, I agree (and so did the dissent), and a court _may_ still find that your right is protected even if you didn't invoke it explicitly, but to be safe you should be explicit. Doing so you can cease the interrogation, otherwise they can hold you "until you crack" or until you explicitly invoke your right to remain silent or legal counsel
We don't need a Supreme Court Justice to tell us what our rights are. These rights are clearly written. And all law enforcers claim to know the law better than citizens. So you never have to verbally say I evoke any of my rights, because they exist regardless.
He could've left at any time. He wasn't detained or arrested. He went down to the police station on his on free will. Only an idiot goes down to a police station and incriminates themselves. I do not see how this weakened the 5th amendment at all.
While I don't think you should have to invoke your 5th amendment rights for it to apply, it seems to me that this guy clearly committed a double murder and shouldn't get away with it. For the purposes of precedent, his silence shouldn't be used against him. But even without that evidence, the factz that his shotgun matched that of the weapon used for the murder and that he fled the country. ..
Imagine a world in which they decided we didnt even have a right to remain silent if invoked... The tactics cops alrdy try to get folks to talk are disgustin even with this right existin, but without it theyd no doubt be open to do anything up to the edge of torture to get you to talk...
Do you not think that 20 years is enough? What about Amendment VIII? I am obviously not well-versed in any type of law, but it seems more would be just cruel; especially in American prisons, which I find purely sadistic.
@@JUNGLEsausage A multitude of reasons. The worse thing you can do to someone is take their life. If you do it intentionally and with premeditation, that's even worse. The punishment should fit the crime. Also, it can serve as a deterrence to others.
Good world view. Bullshit decisions in real life. He said he is pro liberty and pro just reading the constitution as it is but he constantly made decisions that were just conservative and nothing else. Often going against the constitution if the law just was conservative.
Different scenarios. Rittenhouse had properly and unequivocally invoked his right to silence with the police and the prosecutor was improperly attempting to use that against him at trial. In this instance, the subject wasn't in police custody and did not unequivocally invoke his right to silence as SCOTUS now says you must do.
Same as if they don't speak English. They would indicate that. Arrangements can be made. I can't say I've ever had trouble communicating with any of my clients who use less conventional means than speech.
So you can be incriminated by your words without your Miranda Rights being read? In that case, what’s the point of reading the Miranda Rights at all? Yeah, I disagree with this one.
Miranda only applies when in police custody. Salinas was not in custody. He voluntarily spoke with police and was free to leave at any time. However, they should still not be permitted to use his silence against him as evidence of guilt.
This video is misleading. The court didn’t say that a suspect had to verbally invoke their 5th Amendment right in order to enjoy the right. The court merely stated that it was ok for prosecutors to use the suspect’s sudden silence as evidence.
@@nearn8517, no. The result isn't the same. You have a Fifth Amendment right. The ruling merely meant that prosecutors could use sudden silence as information.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
When are you going to do a video on New Jersey vs. TLO?
I agree with the minority vote. Shouldn't have to invoke it to have it.
So far it seems that all of the commenters agree with you.
The 5th amendment should be a passive buff granted to everyone, not an active skill with a cooldown.
I agree this Nerf is totally unfair
That's a brilliant way to put it. My gamer self salutes you.
my life is like a video game trying hard to beat the stage all the while still collecting coins
The 5th Amendment is a right, not a guarantee. It only protects you from being "compelled" into self-incrimination. If you choose to talk anyway, that's your own fault.
@@Compucles Er what? Did you even watch the interview? Salinas v. Texas states that your own silence can be used against you.
For the first time in my life I have to say I agree with Justice Breyer. You don't have to declare you're invoking your First Amendment right to religious freedom before praying, or shout to the world that you are invoking your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms before purchasing a firearm. SURELY, the Fifth Amendment should protect you whether or not the police tell you you have it, and whether or not you said you'd use it.
Well put. It's so weird how this one got so ideological when it doesn't seem that it had to be. Sure, Salinas probably was guilty, but that should not matter to the outcome of this case.
Yep, that's spot on how I felt after watching the video (though this probably isn't my first time agreeing with Breyer).
Mr. Beat right. I was especially shocked to see Scalia concur with the majority. With his history of extending our constitutional rights into the Modern Age, like he did with the 4th Amendment in _Kyllo,_ and the 2nd in the _Heller_ case, it's weird to think you wouldn't extend 5th Amendment protections to pre-custodial 'interrogations,' for lack of a better word.
City Beautiful I saw your new video on planting trees in urban areas. I've never even thought of the shade an evaporative cooling effects they provided before.
Check the text itself: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." If you volunteer information, that's not being "compelled." Even the Miranda Warning states that "anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law."
There's two times it does not benefit you to speak to the police: when you're guilty, and when you're innocent.
Terrible decision by the Supreme Court you shouldn't have to say your invoking your Fifth Amendment right to invoke it I don't know if this is a good example but think if you had to say I'm invoking My First Amendment right to free speech before you said anything controversial or the government could send you to jail for your ideas if they didn't like it
thatcoolkidjoey I agree 100%. I wish I had seen your comment before I made mine, because I said almost the exact same thing.
I fully agree as well this decision is terrible especially in context of other rights.:gun owners don't have to specifically say they have the right to bear firearms before a purchase, Minorities don't have to specifically say they are protected they are protected by the 14th amendment to receive equal treatment. women don't have to cite the 19th amendment to be able to vote; so by that logic citizens(Salinas was not even a suspect in this case when he was interrogated) should receive there 5th amendment rights without them having to specifically ask for it.
Essentially what the Court is saying here is that the self incrimination clause is not as important as other parts of the Bill of Rights.
Stop comparing Nukes to hand grenades. They aren't even the same thing.
The US Supreme Court ruled this year that police can break into your house without a Warrant for Search signed by Judge if there was just cause. Now we know where that will go. They have just cause to execute mentally ill on the street for being homeless, and for shooting your dog or harming your child on a search in a house with the wrong address. Getting more like Germany. Just consider who is sniffing down Trumps back. We will be one big open air Gaza camp, complete with 800 FEMA camps with guillotines and caskets, rail cars being fitted with shackles in Oregon at this moment.. Sorry but "The Grand Old Flag" song just doesn't move me anymore.
I do not agree with this. If someone refuses to answer a certain question, it doesn't make them guilty. To me, this case opened the door for the 5th to influence the jury's decision without substantial evidence. This could still lead to guilty verdict.
Very good point
The substantial evidence was the matching shotgun shells. The refusal to answer was only used as probable cause for a search warrant.
@@iammrbeat Although, from the whole story, I actually doubt that even if the court ruled that they can’t his silence as guilty, they still got evidence he committed a crime. Only thing that’d be thrown off the table is the silence admitting guilt. I actually would argue he already incriminated himself before he became silent, for handing the police evidence before the arrest willingly. The only thing I disagree with is the silence being admission of guilt. I argue that hard evidence is needed, not tentative evidence. Sure, he’s guilty in this one, but what if that person was actually innocent and didn’t get interrogated before? Their silence couldn’t be used, still.
Your videos are seriously underrated. Keep up the good work
Thanks so much! :D
Darius Johnson I agree here, you rock Mr. Beat
The president songs are the best
I would think an unfortunate side effect of this decision is that people won't want to talk to the police. Sounds to me like, unless you are under arrest, or under a legal order, don't voluntarily agree to any questioning.
That’s exactly what should do. Even former chief justices have said that you never talk to the police without a lawyer present
Also, probably don't volunteer to have your gun tested if it's the murder weapon...
Great video! Also, will you be doing a series in the future on Supreme Court Justices? Like on the descions they made?
That's a great idea. I also could rank them!
Keep up the good work! At least one person is learning new things from your videos.
Thank you so much. That makes me happy to hear :D
I always plead the 5th
You should do profiles of Supreme Court justices
That'd be a lot of fun.
I second that, Luke!
stupid socialist kid
Kind of ridiculous that a fundamental right to silence isn't granted just by being silent. You have the right to remain silent, yet when someone remains silent, they're incriminated based on the fact that they're silent? What in the world?
One of the most egregiously incorrect Supreme Court rulings in recent history. The best way to exercise your fifth amendment rights in a way that prevents prosecutors from using that against you now is to invoke your sixth amendment right to an attorney and say nothing else. If you repeat, “I want my attorney,” in response to any question, they can’t currently use that against you in court, and you aren’t incriminating yourself by either staying silent (which the prosecutor can argue indicates guilt) or by giving up potential details that may appear incriminating. Because of Salinas, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,” now also conceptually applies to the specific verbiage you used to invoke your fifth amendment rights, since the case establishes that there is a nebulously right and wrong way to invoke those rights, and that the wrong way can be used against you. However, since an ordinary citizen wouldn’t be able to foresee all the ways their invocation of the fifth amendment could be argued to be “wrong” under Salinas, it’s better to just do nothing but ask for your lawyer until they provide one to you.
Please Do Sweden Vs. Norway, that would be really cool
Eventually...mos def!
Second the motion! Also Sweden vs Denmark, and Sweden vs Finland!
Thanks Matt, you've done it again :)
Glad you dug the episode. :D
Ever since we have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court we see the most baffling cases. Making it harder to fight for your rights.
Okay, so I looked at this a little more closely, because this was the most surprising result in this series so far, to me. Reading a bit of Alito's writing on this, it seems like Garner v. US could have warranted a mention - with approaching this issue from the other direction in mind, this seems like a much more ambiguous issue. I ultimately disagree with the decision and think that the majority was wrong to choose to approach it from the angle they did, I'm no longer certain that either the majority *or* the dissent was necessarily legally incorrect.
I've found that it's very common for this to occur, where supreme court decisions which I disagree with to still be well-considered and reasonable.
Oh boy do I love these briefs!
That makes me happy :)
Please could you do London and Dublin compared
Great suggestion :D
Salinas should’ve argued that the brothers he killed never invoked their right to life so they weren’t protected by it
In the Star Trek DS9 episode “tribunal” chief O’Brien is arrested for murder on trumped up charges. The authorities told him “you have the right to remain silent but doing may be construed as a sign of guilt”
i disagree with this ruling so bad, the 5th should've applied
its like self defense laws, you can stand your ground, but how is it going to look in court if you chase after a burgle firing to kill. I don't think the court would see that as "self defense," without significant proof.
in the same respect, salines had volunteered, he also remained silent. the context of the situation was enough to infer guilt. his silence was not the key factor in his guilt the fact that the information lined up, was. to put it simply his silence was only good to warrant an investigation, not produce guilt. salinas could not be found guilt because he was silent, he could be found guilty because there was significant physical evidence.
"he is not talking your honor, we think there is enough here to connect him to the crime, can we get a warrent *gives info about shotgun*"
"ok *signs warrant*"
the law is upheld, nor does it conflict with previous rulings.
President During this time: Barack Obama
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Argued: April 17, 2013
Decided: June 13, 2013
Case Duration: 57 Days
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Texas
This is a really tough one. I'm not sure if I agree with the majority or the minority here.
Well, it's right there in the Miranda Warning! You have the right to remain silent, but if you choose not to use that right, that's your own fault. After all, "anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law" if you decide to speak up, anyway.
While I agree that refusing to answer further questions isn't evidence of wrongdoing in itself, he had already incriminated himself voluntarily by offering up his gun, and even if he hadn't, his suspicious behavior was still enough to qualify as probable cause for a search warrant. The 5th Amendment doesn't protect you against search warrants, as they are not "Incriminating" in and of themselves.
How do i have a right to remain silent if i need to speak in order to say i have the right to remain silent. Makes no sense, just not saying anything is exercising my right to remain silent, by being silent....
You can indicate using non-verbal means if you choose.
I’ve watched so many of these Supreme Court briefs videos I feel like I could pass my state Bar exam
thank you for including a clip from the best tv show of all time (the wire)
Please do Latvia vs Lithuania comparing video :D
Have you done the cases involving Nativity scenes in public parks and government buildings? Right there’s a issue with the 10 commandments being placed in a classroom and I think it’s similar to that situation
I always wondered why suspects said “I plead the fifth.”
You revealed Scalia and Thomas in the wrong order
Link for music?
Many people are upset about this decision but the thing is
The defendant wasn’t arrested nor was he made to go to the police
He chose to go
Like the courts still rule that if your arrested you do automatically have the right since your forcibly put there.
Truthfully why are you even volunteering going there if you wanna use the 5th you can literally not go and if they do arrest for refusing you then you can fight that in court
You could argue that you chose to forgo the 5th by willingly going
Where as deciding not to go is actually invoking the 5th
Dealing with cops shouldn't be a high stakes trivia game.
This was a classic supreme court case of conservatives vs democratic the ones that were in favor of Texas we’re all conservatives the ones that were in all favor against Texas we’re all democratic. If you are not mirandized as in being under arrest or if you’re not aware of your rights and your remaining silent you should not be used as a sign of guilt. In this case it seems more likely that this person was in fact the murderer however there are cases where people have been innocently incriminated based on this stuff. The Supreme Court got it completely wrong here in my opinion.
If it is a RIGHT why do you have to invoke it?
Invoke in this context means to make clear. You invoke your 6th amendment right by asking for counsel. You invoke your 2nd by buying a gun. People just don't give you guns.
To invoke as in 'to cite' - to mention something as a reason why something has happened.
As in, 'I'm telling you I have the right to shut up, and I plan to do so.'
Don't talk to the police ...... No matter what.
Agreed! They always tell you anything you say can be used AGAINST you; never do they say it can be used in your defense. Other than asserting your right to an attorney, absolutely nothing you say to the police is to your benefit, even the truth.
Thanks a lot for your effort 👍 🙏 👏 🙌 🙂
If the 1st amendment is passive why the hell is the 5th amendment not? You don't have to declare your rights. The Supreme Court is deeply wrong here.
An important phrase to know if you encounter the police is, "I claim my 5th amendment right to remain silent".
You still don't actually have to claim it. Just refuse to say anything without a lawyer.
@@Compucles Correct never talk to the police alone
@@Compucles You have to invoke it explicitly according to Berghuis v Thompkins. It's stupid, I agree (and so did the dissent), and a court _may_ still find that your right is protected even if you didn't invoke it explicitly, but to be safe you should be explicit. Doing so you can cease the interrogation, otherwise they can hold you "until you crack" or until you explicitly invoke your right to remain silent or legal counsel
What shotgun type was it as if it wasn't a too uncomon type then the shells matching the gun would do nothing to help them, i would think
Although this guy definitely did the murders, this reduced trust in the police is a lot of damage.
This is crazy scary
We don't need a Supreme Court Justice to tell us what our rights are. These rights are clearly written. And all law enforcers claim to know the law better than citizens. So you never have to verbally say I evoke any of my rights, because they exist regardless.
I would be curious to know the statistical effects this case created.
This is why you bring a lawyer regardless of the situation
He could've left at any time. He wasn't detained or arrested. He went down to the police station on his on free will. Only an idiot goes down to a police station and incriminates themselves. I do not see how this weakened the 5th amendment at all.
What about all the other evidence against him? They did match the gun with the bullets, and had a witness name him
Why did you not include his picture?
It's not available publicly.
While I don't think you should have to invoke your 5th amendment rights for it to apply, it seems to me that this guy clearly committed a double murder and shouldn't get away with it. For the purposes of precedent, his silence shouldn't be used against him. But even without that evidence, the factz that his shotgun matched that of the weapon used for the murder and that he fled the country. ..
We still need more precedent on if passwords to encryption are 5th amendment protected or not
Don't you mean 4th Amendment protected?
Plessy vs Ferguson
I did that one awhile back, but it definitely needs a reboot. That was well before I started this series.
So only a known suspect of a crime is allowed the 5th???
JUST NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T GO TO QUESTIONING
there is no warrant for questioning
Imagine a world in which they decided we didnt even have a right to remain silent if invoked... The tactics cops alrdy try to get folks to talk are disgustin even with this right existin, but without it theyd no doubt be open to do anything up to the edge of torture to get you to talk...
So basically don’t even be a little helpful and go to the police if they ask you to come?
You gave to speak to not speak? bs
Wowzers that is damn near the stupidest argument I have ever heard from a supreme court decision
It suck that this case was brought up by a criminal and not an innocent individual.
Why does that matter?
The defendant was quite.
"DONT GET BRAZZEN WITH ME!"
Do you not think that 20 years is enough? What about Amendment VIII? I am obviously not well-versed in any type of law, but it seems more would be just cruel; especially in American prisons, which I find purely sadistic.
For killing 2 people 20 years is too little
@@joshuaconrad5782 But what's the point? In our hypothetical scenario, people have
died--what good does it do to effectively take another?
@@JUNGLEsausage A multitude of reasons. The worse thing you can do to someone is take their life. If you do it intentionally and with premeditation, that's even worse. The punishment should fit the crime. Also, it can serve as a deterrence to others.
Go with your lawyer .
this is outrageous, the worst scotus decision since plessy v ferguson ( 1896)
Why all the hastle to bring it through all courts when they just could have used the gun testing and witness report as evidence?
Scalia is my favorite
_fite me_
I have a love/hate relationship with him.
Good world view. Bullshit decisions in real life. He said he is pro liberty and pro just reading the constitution as it is but he constantly made decisions that were just conservative and nothing else. Often going against the constitution if the law just was conservative.
No way does it harm the 5th. It was the shotgun that he gave up willingly that convicted him
This very brazenly harms the fifth amendment.
3:32
*active surprise*
I feel a griffin v California coming on.
I am remaining silent.
The Supreme Court got this one wrong. Very wrong.
So disappointed with Kennedy on this one. You can definitely use a constitutional right even if you don’t say explicitly that you are
In the Netherlands this could never happen
He would be set free.
But when the prosecutor does the same against the Rittenhouse its not allowed?
Different scenarios. Rittenhouse had properly and unequivocally invoked his right to silence with the police and the prosecutor was improperly attempting to use that against him at trial. In this instance, the subject wasn't in police custody and did not unequivocally invoke his right to silence as SCOTUS now says you must do.
what if the person who is suspect is mute?
Same as if they don't speak English. They would indicate that. Arrangements can be made. I can't say I've ever had trouble communicating with any of my clients who use less conventional means than speech.
3:57 I didn’t know Clarence Thomas was actually white. That makes more sense. And Scalia being black kind of makes sense
First
Yep I said that
So you can be incriminated by your words without your Miranda Rights being read? In that case, what’s the point of reading the Miranda Rights at all? Yeah, I disagree with this one.
Miranda only applies when in police custody. Salinas was not in custody. He voluntarily spoke with police and was free to leave at any time. However, they should still not be permitted to use his silence against him as evidence of guilt.
Wow, this is a pure bullshit decision. How the hell can you not have the right to remain silent?
Law enforcement is always close to my heart; and this prisoner murdered two people, for cryin' out loud!
unless you're deaf & the police refuse to get you an interpreter
I am salinas
I am Sparticus.
Why is this a thing?
Did he kill those two brothers?
This is the stupidest ruling...
Hmmmm right along party lines
Build the wall!!!
Weakened? *Violated.*
Hopefully this gets overturned someday.
Yeah, they definitely need to revisit this issue.
So just a reminder to never talk to the police?
Hello 👋 people! That haven’t watched this yet.
lol, it feels like texas has a lot of supream problems for the supream court
What time is it
It's appeal time baby
this is another case of a assuming you know what that does by assuming it makes an a**s out of u & me!!!
Cops basically can go around the constitution, that's what I'm getting from this.
I am exercising my 5th amendment right not to comment on youtube videos. doh!
That's inapposite. How does leaving a comment incriminate you?
@@JayeEllis cos I was gonna say I'm the real killer of JFK -I'm "badge man" on the grassy knoll, front and right. oswald was only a patsy
This video is misleading. The court didn’t say that a suspect had to verbally invoke their 5th Amendment right in order to enjoy the right. The court merely stated that it was ok for prosecutors to use the suspect’s sudden silence as evidence.
which is stupid
They are different but it has the same end result
@@nearn8517, no. The result isn't the same. You have a Fifth Amendment right. The ruling merely meant that prosecutors could use sudden silence as information.