We’re all taught that we have a Fifth Amendment right to silence, but most are unaware of just how limited that right to silence is, and how readily your silence CAN be used against you in a court of law.
I’ll cover this treacherous legal ground in the context of a new decision out of the Arizona Supreme court, as well as a controlling US Supreme Court decision that applies to all 50 states.
State v. Melendez, 2025 Ariz. LEXIS 106 (AZ Supreme Court 2025)
QUESTION: So once you assert your right to remain silent, the police have to stop talking to you.
Five hours later, the police can again talk to you. They re-read you your Miranda rights and that resets your previous assertion and you must reassert your right to remain silent?
When they ask if you understand your rights, I don’t believe most folks understand them that way.
Shouldn’t the detectives be required to have your lawyer present before resuming questioning?
If you invoke your right to an attorney, questioning must cease immediately, and you cannot be interrogated unless:
1) you initiate the communication – Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981)
2) there is a fourteen-day break in “custody” – Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010)
3) an attorney is present for the interview
Always ask for an attorney.
“… if a suspect believes that he is not capable of undergoing such questioning without advice of counsel, then it is presumed that any subsequent waiver that has come at the authorities’ behest, and not at the suspect’s own instigation, is itself the product of the “inherently compelling pressures” and not the purely voluntary choice of the suspect.”
Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988)
Thanks for the response.
As I said, I don’t believe most people actually understand their rights, even though they may think they do. But I’m learning.