William Rehnquist is rolling in his grave -- laughing with glee ("Why didn't I think of that?").

The ruling flies in the face of the court's longstanding insistence that a suspect can only waive his rights by affirmatively doing so. The majority said it was standing by Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark 1966 decision that revolutionized police interrogations. But in fact, the court created yet another gaping hole in the Miranda doctrine — this one backed by what can be described as Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

The Right to Remain Silent: Has the Supreme Court Decimated Miranda?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1993580,00.html

The kicker:
Kennedy said the court's new rule -- in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins -- was an extension of the logic in a previous case that said a suspect must affirmatively assert his right to counsel. The court essentially agreed with the position of the government against Thompkins, advanced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's pending nominee to the Supreme Court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102114.html?hpid=politics

BOO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O!!!

My understanding, from reading the actual ruling as opposed to just listening to talking heads at news outlets who are generally morons, is that you still have the right to remain silent (it's a right, after all). But, until you either "lawyer up" or actively assert "I'm not going to talk to you", the police continue to have the right to ask you questions, hoping you'll answer them.

In other words, the police do not have to assume you're going to invoke your right to silence, and stop asking questions. You can, however, let them keep talking for hours or days straight, and remain mute the whole time. That right you continue to retain.

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion by the talking heads....

I think they read the dissent. Miranda is being taken apart, brick by brick. Twenty years from now, it will be gone entirely.

The case reviewed was extreme, because there seemed to be 3 hours of questioning with no response from the suspect. Probably why this particular case made it's way to the top court.

The court would have really confused things though by ruling the other way.
It would not make sense for investigators to stop any further questioning because the person being interviewed simply didn't answer a particular question.

On a side note....now, if a person verbally invokes their right to silence, but does not ask for an attorney, how long is that right to silence stay in effect? Can he/she be questioned again in another setting, the next week, 2 years from now?

Thanks, Gibby.

So...Does "I have nothing to say to you," qualify as an invocation of their right to remain silent?

Meanwhile, hope that PPB doesn't persuade Oregon to go this way too

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

What's most troubling is that they didn't have to decide the issue because of the huber-deferential review under the AEDPA. It's a sign that "judicial restraint" is a doctrine only invoked at confirmation hearings and when it suits Roberts and Alito. At least Thomas and Scalia have been openly hostile toward Miranda since time immemorial.

Wait... is there a right against self incrimination... is that somewhere in the constitution? Really?

If the Supremes can pick a president in violation of the constitution, why not start really trashing the document?

/*deep sarcasm mode off*/

"But, until you either "lawyer up" or actively assert "I'm not going to talk to you", the police continue to have the right to ask you questions, hoping you'll answer them."
===

Which happened in this case. The suspect was answering some questions, but not others, and then answered "yes" when a detective asked if he prayed for forgiveness for the shooting.

I think the key is to say "I invoke Miranda, and won't talk anymore. Get me my lawyer."

And then, of course, you have to stop talking, which this guy did not do.

The simplest and easiest answer would be for the court to rule that the police had to advise the suspect that in order to invoke the Miranda rights he or she had to do so affirmatively. Case Closed.

I think the reason this was not done is because the majority, particularly Thomas and Scalia don't like Miranda and want the police to have an unlimited and unconstrained opportunity to question, harass, threaten and coerice suspects.