Today, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Berghuis v. Thompkins that suspects being interrogated must explicitly tell law enforcement they wish to remain silent in order to invoke their right to remain silent.[1] This case has important implications for law enforcement in conducting interrogations and for determining a suspect’s right to remain silent after law enforcement provides a Miranda warning.
The case involved the interrogation of a murder suspect, Van Chester Thompkins. After police officers properly provided Thompkins a card listing his Miranda rights, Thompkins remained mostly silent during a three-hour interrogation. At the end of this interrogation, Thompkins confessed to his role in the murder. At no time during the interrogation did Thompkins state that he did not want to speak to the police or that he wished to remain silent.
At trial, Thompkins’ statement was used against him, and Thompkins was eventually convicted of first-degree murder. Thompkins appealed the conviction, arguing in part that his persistent silence during the interrogation constituted an exercise of his right to remain silent and that his confession was therefore elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.[2] The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that because the statement was not coerced and Thompkins understood his Miranda rights, the confession constituted a waiver of his right to remain silent. The Court also affirmed prior case law that had held a waiver of Miranda rights may be inferred from a suspect’s actions or words, and need not be expressed or in writing.
This decision provides helpful guidelines for interrogation procedures used in police departments. Similar to a suspect affirmatively invoking his or her right to an attorney, a suspect being interrogated must now affirmatively and unambiguously invoke his or her right to remain silent. So long as the suspect understands his or her Miranda rights and the answers are not coerced, an eventual answer to police questioning after a period of silence will constitute a waiver of the right to remain silent. Consequently, police officers may continue their post-Miranda interrogation until the suspect unambiguously invokes his or her right to remain silent or right to counsel.
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin serves as legal counsel to law enforcement agencies throughout California and is at the forefront of legal issues confronting law enforcement agencies. Please contact Senior Partner Roger A. Colvin at rcolvin@agclawfirm.com or (562) 699-5500 for more information.
[1] Berghuis v. Thompkins, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-1470, June 1, 2010.
[2] Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
