Recent U.S. S.Ct. Decision

Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470, Decided June 1, 2010. Thompkins was in custody under arrest. The police told Thompkins that he had a Miranda right to remain silent. He remained silent and did not say anything. He did not request an attorney. The police continued to ask questions, but Thompkins said nothing. After 3 hours of interrogation and silence he made an incriminating statement. The Supreme Court held that there was no Miranda violation. The suspect must specifically say something that indicates an assertion of Miranda rights. By talking, Thompkins waived his Miranda rights. This is a bad decision which further erodes the protections of Miranda. The police are in control of the situation and (hopefully) know the law. They told him he could remain silent. How can one assert a right and still remain silent? Because the police are in control of the situation and know the law, the silence should have been interpreted as an assertion of the right to remain silent, and the police should have left. The police should not be able to exploit ambiguous situations. I agree with the dissenting liberals on this one. I was disappointed that Kennedy voted with the knee-jerk conservatives on this one. LINK