Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your life.
If you get drunk and get behind the wheel, any ruin that ensues is entirely on you.
'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
51–60 of 101 posts
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#52Technically no, because there isn't actually a right to remain silent under the United States Constitution. Miranda readings, which most people conflate with this "right to remain silent" are a bit of a bizarre invention of the Warren Court from other preexisting rights: 1. The against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. 2. The right to have counsel present during interrogation, since interrogation is consi…
Of course, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Do you have a natural right to be left alone if you so choose? Do you have a natural right to not be a witness against yourself? It seems a society based on popular sovereignty should define these rights as inherent and innate to being a person.
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#53Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your life.
[deleted]
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#54[deleted]
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#55Most people have watched enough "Cops" to have memorized the script. Now, go grab a copy of a law dictionary (I use Bouvier's or Black's) and read the definition of every word in that script. You'll be amazed at what it really means.
Silence is considered acceptance in contempt. A cop telling you that you have the right to put yourself in contempt, when you have a duty as a taxpaying citizen to respond, should give you some pause.
Don't take my word for it, though; read a law dictionary.
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#56Technically no, because there isn't actually a right to remain silent under the United States Constitution. Miranda readings, which most people conflate with this "right to remain silent" are a bit of a bizarre invention of the Warren Court from other preexisting rights: 1. The against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. 2. The right to have counsel present during interrogation, since interrogation is consi…
Of course, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Do you have a natural right to be left alone if you so choose? Do you have a natural right to not be a witness against yourself? It seems a society based on popular sovereignty should define these rights as inherent and innate to being a person. And if you do assert your Constitutional rights, it's an easy way to escalate a situation where you soon learn the meaning t…
Asserting your rights is a fantastic ride, if you know how to do it. Everyone should Google how Geithner beat both rap and ride from the NYPD in four hours.that guy's a pro.
If you don't know how to properly assert your rights, then you have none; expect to have your window smashed in, and be pulled out of your car. Or have cops and social workers come to remove your kids from an "unsafe" house 30 minutes after the power company shuts off the power for some reason.
But if you do it right, you're treated extremely politely by policemen and justice system participants.
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
" You have a right to remain silent, as the Supreme Court has codified it;" So let's a few things things straight :) 1. This particular right does not explicitly appear in the constitution. There is nobody who argues otherwise. The history of the fifth amendment does not support any other reading than being about compulsion to testify (IE torture, etc). 2. The Supreme Court are the ones who say you have to invoke it…
Unlike you, I am not a laywer, so take this for what it's worth: I agree with most of what you say, but I do think the following statement is a bit unfair: > So it does make sense to talk about invoking it, since the same people who have explained this right have said, as part of that explanation, that you are required to do it. Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to two separate SCOTUS decisions that are separated…
"Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling."
It's certainly fair to criticize, but honestly, this is the problem with unenumerated rights in general (like "The right to privacy" and others), and judicially made rules like the exclusionary rule - they tend to erode or change over time, even after people come to rely on them.
I'd much prefer to see both in the constitution itself. :)
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#58There's a lecture by a law school professor called "Don't Talk to Police" that I've seen on HN before and is definitely worth watching. The case in the article is unfortunate, although I'm curious what might have happened if Tom had asked "am I under arrest?" after not being allowed to go home.
In the second example the article gives, I wonder what would've happened if the defendant had not answered any questions voluntarily and chosen to remain silent.
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#59Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your life.
A drivers license has always been a privilege, not a right.
This use of the word "privilege" has always irked me - maybe I'm just not reading it in the correct sense. It sounds very paternalistic.
Driving is a regulated activity, but you do have a right to a drivers license if you are able to comply with the regulations. "Privilege" sounds so arbitrary, as if someone could say "I don't like your face, no license for you".
Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's petty, troubling procedure to be forced to verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right" Which right are you referring to here? As has been pointed out, the right to remain silent does not appear in the constitution. :) Only the right to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself, which is not the same at all (and does not need to be invoked)
I'm referring to the right to not self-incriminate. That is the issue at hand. What you said is untrue twice over. It's central to this issue and it does "need" to be invoked. The SCOTUS made some fateful rulings in 2013 and the gist ever since is that one must invoke the Fifth in order to be perceived as protected by the Fifth at that time. That's what the article is about.
"I'm referring to the right to not self-incriminate."
Also not in the constitution. Cite otherwise. The right the article is talking about is the fifth amendment, which only says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
Not the same as a general right against self-incrimination (and no court case has ever held otherwise ...)
"What you said is untrue twice over. "
Again, in what way? You are the one who refuses to actually back up your statement that this right appears in the constitution, or was understood to be primary constitutional right.
(Spoiler alert: It hasn't been. There are plenty of state and other supreme court cases where silence was allowed to be used against people, and until the time of Miranda, nobody believed this was part of the fifth)
" It's central to this issue and it does "need" to be invoked."
I'm still not sure what you are talking about. I know what the article is talking about. The article is talking about an implicit right to silence created by the Miranda decision that the court found to be necessary to protect people, and its gradual erosion.
" and the gist ever since is that one must invoke the Fifth in order to be perceived as protected by the Fifth at that time. That's what the article is about."
See above
It is only in the past 50 years that any court has ever held the fifth amendment gave you the right to remain silent, and in fact, precedent was the exact opposite for centuries.
You are of course, welcome to look up the caselaw history if you don't believe me.
It simply was not understood to be a primary constitutional right, contrary to your assertion. There was not even anything you could invoke. Prosecutors were free to use your silence against you
Talking about it as if it has always been an understood part of the fifth amendment does nobody any favors. It hasn't. Again, you won't find any serious legal academic who argues otherwise.
Here's an unbiased view by a preeminent con-law scholar: http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-rema...
Note the section on pre-1965.
The truth is this is the problem with rights whose plain text does not appear in the constitution, like privacy, like the exclusionary rule, like a lot of things - they tend to erode over time.
But the solution to that is not to pretend they are written into the constitution and then lament a changing ideology of the supreme court, but instead actually put them there.