So, the recent decision by the Supreme Court seems to stand for the premise that if a person is detained by the police of other authority (Federal Marshalls, FBI, Texas Rangers, etc.), then the person must invoke his 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination by stating that he is invoking his 5th Amendment Rights to avoid his silence being used against him.
From the reading of the Supreme Court's decision, this does not apply after the subject is arrested and Mirandized. Once this happens, the person's silence cannot be used against him. But, once again, this is after the person is arrested and Mirandized. What occurs before this is apparently "fair game" unless, of course, the person being detained is smart enough to specifically invoke the 5th Amendment privilege.
How does this affect arrests in the future? Well, speaking as a criminal defense attorney and fraud examiner, it will have a tremendous effect on criminal prosecutions in the future.
We will discuss this tomorrow.
From the reading of the Supreme Court's decision, this does not apply after the subject is arrested and Mirandized. Once this happens, the person's silence cannot be used against him. But, once again, this is after the person is arrested and Mirandized. What occurs before this is apparently "fair game" unless, of course, the person being detained is smart enough to specifically invoke the 5th Amendment privilege.
How does this affect arrests in the future? Well, speaking as a criminal defense attorney and fraud examiner, it will have a tremendous effect on criminal prosecutions in the future.
We will discuss this tomorrow.
NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR
IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IF
THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.
----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene
tausk
No comments:
Post a Comment