SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ...-you-have-the-right-not-to-disclose-your-password... dept.
In the half-century since the Miranda decision, a lot has changed. For one, many of us carry smartphones containing a rich trove of personal data in our pockets that might interest law enforcement. In fact, it wasn't until 2014 that police officers nationwide were specifically ordered not to search people's phones without a warrant during an arrest.
In 1966, no one envisioned a world where we carried powerful computers in our pockets, so it's time for an update to the Miranda warning. A modernized version would need to make clear not only that anyone can refuse to speak, but that speaking might involve inputting a passcode to open up a phone. After speaking with several legal experts, here's our "digital Miranda," based on our best understanding of current law.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday January 01 2017, @08:31AM
The warning ends with the question: "Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?" What would happen if you answered "No"? And what would happen if you remained silent (as the first sentence tells you are allowed to)?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @08:38AM
You go back in your cell for refusing to cooperate. All evidence against you will be used with extreme prejudice. You should try it some time.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday January 01 2017, @01:08PM
And what would happen if you remained silent (as the first sentence tells you are allowed to)?
Then the authorities will assume you understood your rights, whether you have or not, and act however best works out to their advantage.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 01 2017, @03:28PM
The warning ends with the question: "Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?" What would happen if you answered "No"?
Depends. First, the cops will likely just repeat the warning. If you still say "no," then they'll probably try to ascertain why you're saying no. If they just think you're being a smartass, it won't matter -- they'll likely just treat you as if you said "yes." (Actually, they'll probably just be more annoyed with you.) If there's some legitimate reason why you said "no" (e.g., you don't speak English, you couldn't hear them, you're mentally deficient, you're under the influence of drugs that make you legally "incompetent," etc.) then it could create problems if you make a statement and the cops subsequently try to introduce it into evidence. Cases have been dismissed in the past, for example, where a defendant who didn't understand English was read Miranda only in English but then confessed. Anyhow, what you actually say in response in a case where you couldn't actually understand the rights is technically irrelevant legally, because if it can be proven by your attorney that it you were incapable of understanding them (regardless of what you said), that COULD be a reason to throw out statements you made. But an actual "no" response could be firmer evidence of that in some cases, I suppose.
And what would happen if you remained silent (as the first sentence tells you are allowed to)?
A lot of people do. If you don't say anything in response to the question, it is legally taken as a "yes" answer that you do understand. But again, that's subject to the qualifier I already mentioned where a lawyer can PROVE you didn't understand -- for example, if it later comes out that you don't understand English or whatever, then a judge can potentially suppress statements you made.
Keep in mind that reading Miranda is simply a formality, as is any response you make to it. Whether or not the cops read you those rights, you still have them if you are detained by the police. Failing to reading Miranda just sets a much higher bar to introducing statements in COURT after arrest, because the police need to prove that you were otherwise aware of your rights and that your statements were not coerced. Generally speaking, such statements would be categorically inadmissible unless they fell under particular legal exemptions. (Note that the police can still question you without Miranda -- they just can't introduce anything you say as evidence against you in court.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @03:12AM
Sadly that isn't really true anymore. There have been SCOTUS cases where the person stayed silent and the silence was used against them or allowed as a method to establish probable cause because they didn't specifically say out loud they were exercising their Fifth Amendment rights. It is to the point where local the AFSC and JFON groups I volunteer with are considering instructing people who run into the law to answer every question with "Fifth" to specifically avoid the issue of their silence being used against them or to open the door to search.