Berghuis v. Thompkins: Supreme Court Rules That Miranda Right To Remain Silent Must Be Unambiguously Invoked By Suspect To Stop An Interrogation

The Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling that will effect the Miranda rights of suspected criminals. In any news story or discussion of a Supreme Court decision regarding Miranda rights it is important to point out that there is actually a strong originalist argument to be made that Miranda v. Arizona, which is the basis for the right to be mirandized and have confessions not count as evidence until that takes place, actually has no basis in the original Constitution. Justice White began his dissent in that famous case by declaring, "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment. As for the English authorities and the common law history, the privilege, firmly established in the second half of the seventeenth century, was never applied except to prohibit compelled judicial interrogations."

The Supreme Court just ruled, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, as correctly described by Scotuswiki, that "if a suspect does not want to talk to police — that is, to invoke a right to silence — he must say so, with a clear statement because it is not enough to sit silently or to remain uncooperative, even through a long session; and, second, if the suspect finally answers a suggestive question with a one-word response that amounts to a confession, that, by itself, will be understood as a waiver of the right to silence and the statement can be used as evidence. Police need not obtain an explicit waiver of that right. The net practical effect is likely to be that police, in the face of a suspect’s continued silence after being given Miranda warnings, can continue to question him, even for a couple of hours, in hopes eventually of getting him to confess."

The mainstream liberal media have responded to this reasonable ruling that slightly modifies and clarifies a rule that itself is not based on the Constitution by claiming that the Miranda rights are being decimated. A Los Angeles Times editorial declared the ruling "a problematic one for future application of the Miranda rule." Adam Cohen wrote in Time Magazine that

the court created a "gaping hole in the Miranda doctrine" that was "backed by what can be described as Alice in Wonderland logic."

The facts of the case were that police were interrogating suspect Van Chester Thompkins about a 2000 murderous shooting in Michigan, and Thompkins remained virtually silent for almost three hours. It was at that point that one of the officers asked him about God. "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" the officer asked Thompkins, as court documents indicate. Thompkins' then finally answered: "Yes." The Washington Times reports that in "Thompkins' case, police had tracked him to Ohio a year after a shooting outside a mall in Southfield, Mich., left Samuel Morris dead from multiple gunshot wounds. While in custody, according to court documents, police informed Thompkins of his Miranda rights, though he refused to sign a form indicating that he understood them. For the next several hours in an 8-foot-by-10-foot interrogation room, two police officers peppered Thompkins with questions."

The Supreme Court ruled that "[i]f an ambiguous act, omission or statement could require police to end the interrogation, police would be required to make difficult decisions about an accused's unclear intent and face the consequence of suppression 'if they guess wrong. Suppression of a voluntary confession in these circumstances would place a significant burden on society's interest in prosecuting criminal activity." The Court explained that “Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked 'unambiguously. . . .' If the accused makes an 'ambiguous or equivocal' statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation. . . or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent. . . . Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing. He did neither.”

This ruling is simply common sense, not the disaster the left has portrayed it as. If a suspect has been informed of his Miranda rights, and understands his Miranda rights, and yet he allows for interrogation to continue and then proceeds to answer a question, that answer should count as evidence for purposes of trial. As a person that had heard his Miranda rights as told to him by the police officers, and as a person asked specifically if he understands the rights, the suspect should then have to unambiguously declare that he is invoking the right. The Supreme Court made a logical that in no way infringes on the underlying right to remain silent during an interrogation, or any other of the rights that are well known to all Americans from watching any cop television show that features an arrest. The hysterics from the left regarding this case are once again completely unwarranted. They cry fowl when the Supreme Court actually delivers a logical opinion reining in a Supreme Court precedent to meet what common sense requires, but laud Supreme Court decisions that impose liberal policies on the nation without any regard to the Constitution and its original meaning.
Tweet