Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said that “a suspect who wants to invoke their right not to be questioned must do it unambiguously. He goes on to say that “Thompkins did not say he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,” Kennedy wrote. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor said the decision “turns Miranda upside down.” The problem, Sotomayor wrote, is that “criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent….” The suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”
The legal world is inherently confusing and subject to different interpretations. The iconic Miranda warnings are so popular that many of us can recite them verbatim. Many are aware that upon arrest and prior to interrogation, the police must inform you of certain rights. Those rights are that you have a right to remain silent, and that anything you say will be used against you in the court of law. Additionally, you have a right to consult with a lawyer, a right to have a lawyer to be present with you during interrogation and if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you.
The Miranda protections benefit individuals who understands these rights and invoke these rights immediately. However, for many who are unsophisticated, poorly educated, language barriers exist or mentally ill, the police will interrogate such suspects for hours. This will lead to a more coerced and unreliable confession, resulting in wrongful incarceration and diminish our collective security and trust in the criminal justice system. This is the very phenomenon that Miranda aimed to eliminate.
A number of lower courts are applying the clear and unambiguous standard, finding that such statements as “I think I would like to talk to a lawyer” or “I think it’s about time for me to stop talking,” as not asserting the right to remain silent or to be represented by an attorney. It is critical that no wavering or appearance of indecision occurs. If you are confronted with being arrested and being “Mirandized,” you must state in clear and simple language: “I do not want to talk” or “I want an attorney” or “I do not want to talk without an attorney.”
Harvard Law professor William Stuntz, considered conservative by some, says that the ruling is not reality, since almost anyone will answer some questions if interrogated in a small room by police officers for hours on end. Professor Stuntz goes on to state that “the doctrine (now) makes no sense.” It provides a lot of protection to suspects who don’t need protecting—to the best educated, and to recidivists who know how to play the game. And it provides no protection to the people who needs it most. It’s a dumb law.”
There are equivalent Miranda rights in other countries. In Australia, suspects are advised, “You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand? In England and Wales, “You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence.” In the Philippines, the Philippine National Police (PNP) are required to say the Miranda warnings translated from English.
I believe that the version used by England and Wales is the least complicated and the simple words make it less confusing to suspects that are already scared and intimidated by the criminal justice system. The lesson for all of us is that if we are confronted in this situation, the use of words such as “I think” or “maybe” to indicate that we want to remain silent should never be used. Just state in clear words that you want an attorney and to remain silent, then be quiet.