LAWYER EXPLAINS: Cops Have a 5th Amendment LOOPHOLE

The 5th Amendment and the right to remain silent are NOT the same thing! Why would the Supreme Court allow a loophole for police to use when they investigate people? Here's what you need to know to defend yourself.

Free Guides:

[harpintn]

If the police are questioning you the only thing you should say is "I want to talk to a lawyer", "am I under arrest?", "can I go now?", and " I refuse to answer any questions."

[beepbop]

Miranda: "anything you say can and will be used against you"

Courts: "also, anything you don't say will be used against you too".

[thogevoll]

Not the first time the Supreme Court has made a mistake.
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
Is pretty clear language to me.

[CBU-jv]

Two things to know.
1. The difference between an interview and interrogation.
2. NEVER TALK TO POLICE IN EITHER SITUATION without legal representation.

[ralphparker]

If there was a lack of real evidence, he should not of been convicted. Pretending we can read peoples minds and thus imply their quilt is outrageously wrong.

[davidhoffman]

I am sure that the Founding Fathers NEVER thought that we would twist the 5th Amendment in such a perverse way!

[iamnotafraid]

The miranda rights they read you state, "You have the right to remain silent..." not "You have the right to verbally tell us you wish to use your right to remain silent."

[taliawtf]

It's better to let ten guilty men walk free than imprison ONE innocent man. I think the Supreme Court has forgotten that.

[franciscampagna]

The Supremes always find "loopholes" that don't seem to be written anywhere. Are they listening to voices in their heads?

[AcmeRacing]

Ever since I read Wickard v. Filburn in a business law class, I have been convinced that SCOTUS can interpret laws to mean the exact opposite of what they say. Likewise, the fifth amendment seems to have a loophole, where exercising your right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination is self-incriminating. It's absurd on its face.

[MichaelJones-rnpq]

The suspect should have NEVER agreed to come in to talk to the police in the first place.

[derkevevin]

"You are not required to say *anything* to us *at any time* or answer any questions."

"You are guilty of murder because you didn't say anything without saying you don't want to say anything."

Absolute joke 🤡

All of this should be overruled. If they have real evidence, the people involved should go to jail, if they're guilty. But this ruling does nothing to serve the American people and on the contrary, is hurting all of them. It doesn't matter what technicalities there are, what the court needs to know or whatever. The rights are supposed to be straight forward, with no strings attached. All this does is help police getting their convictions by tricking the people they are supposed to serve and protect. This is just tyranny. And if you want to know what the founders thought about tyranny, check the second amendment.

[shibosuru]

Its not only voluntary. Voluntary or involuntary invoke 5th and request to speak to a lawyer. Don't voluntarily give info even when innocent, they'll spin it to make you seem guilty.

[spartacusjonesmusic]

Nothing breeds as much contempt for the law as SCOTUS decisions like this one.

[pablodelsegundo]

That's why you never volunteer to questioning by police. Make them go through their processes and answer nothing w/o a lawyer.

[brad]

Ohhh.... You wanted your rights provided by the Constitution of the United States? Uh Oh! Did you tell us you wanted those rights at the time? No?.... GUILTY!

[timemageatomsk]

The fact that we have to have videos about how to protect your self from the government shows a huge breakdown in our system

[gallantmouse]

Just want to point out that the question "does this shell match your father's shotgun" is like asking does your car run on fuel...yes and so does every other car

[kichigaisensei]

Step one: don't voluntarily allow yourself to be interviewed by the police without a lawyer present.

[markburnham]

The critical lesson to be learned here is that the Constitution means exactly what SCOTUS says it means, and this is subject to change from time to time.