Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent
Miranda rights, also known as Miranda warnings, provide two important protections:
- The right to remain silent
- The right to have a lawyer present during questioning
To be protected by these rights, a suspect must explicitly invoke them. Simply staying silent is not enough to make law enforcement stop their questioning. Police officers are expected to inform suspects of their Miranda rights, and once the suspect confirms they understand, any statements they make can be used as evidence in court. Any statements made during the interrogation are still admissible if a suspect doesn’t clearly state their intention to remain silent or ask for a lawyer.
After a suspect has been read their rights and confirms they understand them, police are permitted to continue questioning. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t automatically protect a suspect’s statements just because they remain silent for a time; the suspect must clearly state that they wish to stay silent for that protection to take effect.
Even if a suspect doesn’t formally invoke their right to remain silent, the prosecution must still demonstrate that they waived this right for their statements to be used as evidence. This waiver doesn’t have to be explicitly spoken. If a suspect speaks voluntarily after being informed of their rights, it may be considered a waiver of their right to remain silent.
How to Invoke Your Right to Remain Silent
To fully protect yourself under the Fifth Amendment, it’s vital to assert your right to remain silent during police interrogations. Since the Supreme Court has determined that silence and body language can be unclear, the best way to invoke this right is to say something straightforward like, “I invoke my Miranda right to remain silent.” Other clear statements could include:
- “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”
- “I choose to remain silent.”
- “I want to speak with my attorney.”
- “I want to talk with my attorney first.”
While the exact wording isn’t strictly required, the Supreme Court has established that as long as a “reasonable police officer” would understand the request as an invocation of rights, it is valid. Vague or uncertain statements, such as “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” are insufficient. In Davis v. United States (1994), the Court ruled that unclear statements like this do not effectively invoke your rights.
It’s essential to be firm and unambiguous when asserting your right to remain silent because experienced interrogators might attempt to exploit any unclear statements. You can invoke this right even before the police formally read your Miranda rights, and you may need to repeat your request to ensure the officers clearly understand.
Once you’ve clearly invoked your right to silence, police questioning must stop. Any attempts by officers to continue would violate your Miranda rights, and any statements made under those circumstances could be excluded from evidence in court. However, be aware that any voluntary statements you make after invoking your rights can still be used against you.
Failure to Invoke the Right to Silence
The following court rulings emphasize situations where a defendant’s silence was used against them without violating their Fifth Amendment or Miranda rights, primarily because they failed to clearly invoke their right to remain silent.
Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. (2013)
The U.S. Supreme Court examined a case in which the defendant voluntarily spoke to police during a murder investigation without being under arrest. When questioned about his involvement, the defendant fell silent, and his behavior visibly changed. Law enforcement used his silence and demeanor shift as evidence of guilt. The Court held that this did not violate his right against self-incrimination because he had not explicitly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.
People v. Tom, No. S202107 (2014)
The California Supreme Court dealt with a defendant’s silence after a drunk-driving accident. The prosecution argued that the defendant showed no concern for the victims involved. This silence occurred after the defendant’s arrest but before his Miranda rights were read. The court ruled that his rights were not violated since he had not clearly asserted his right to silence.
These cases underscore the critical importance of clearly invoking the right to remain silent, as silence on its own can be used as evidence of guilt if the Fifth Amendment is not properly invoked.
Need an Attorney?
Call Us for a FREE Case Review: 310-274-6529
