Let that sink in. You no longer have the right to remain silent. No, really. And naturally, it’s a Texas case, Salinas v. Texas, ruled on by SCOTUS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas encourages the kind of loosey-goosey, and easily contaminated, police questioning that led to Yarris’ wrongful conviction. Salinas may very well have been guilty of the two murders. But in many cases, as in this one, there are no eyewitnesses and not much other evidence of guilt: That is why the police may desperately need a confession. And that makes it crucial for them to handle interrogations and confessions with the utmost care. The court appreciated none of the pressures police face, and how they can squeeze an innocent suspect. Alito and the other conservatives were not troubled that there was no video to confirm that Salinas was in fact uncomfortable as well as silent. If Salinas had answered the question by exclaiming that he was innocent, could police have reported that he sounded desperate and like a liar? The court’s new ruling puts the “defendant in an impossible predicament. He must either answer the question or remain silent,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in dissent (joined by the other three liberal-moderates). “If he answers the question, he may well reveal, for example, prejudicial facts, disreputable associates, or suspicious circumstances—even if he is innocent.” But if he doesn’t answer, at trial, police and prosecutors can now take advantage of his silence, or perhaps even of just pausing or fidgeting.
Questions first, rights later is the approach the court’s majority now endorses. And by giving the police more incentive to ask questions informally, the new ruling will also undermine the key reform that police have adopted to prevent false confessions: videotaping entire interrogations. Why not try to trap a suspect before the camera starts rolling? In only a few cases like Yarris’ will there be DNA to test. The likely result of the court’s embrace of shoddy interrogation tactics: more wrongful convictions.
H/t David Benowitz.
That the Supreme Court is eroding our constitutional liberties one case at a time is obvious. Which is why Obama must do something about the activities of the NSA before the latest court ruling goes before the Supreme Court. If Obama wants to be impeached he should persist in his support for the unconstitutional actions of the NSA. Both the Right and the Left agree that what they NSA is doing is illegal and should stop immediately. If Obama refuses to take any action then the House should begin impeachment proceedings to investigate whether Obama has committed any “high crimes” OR “misdemeanors” through his acquiescence. Both the Left and the Right would support such an investigation and impeachment.