Hacker News Reader

Comment by tankbot | Hacker News Reader

> The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning.

How is this possible given the 4th and 5th amendments?

View on HN

The whole argument behind this ruling is that at first the suspect talked and then stopped answering questions. Had the suspect not talked in the first place, then the 5th wouldn't have been voided, but since he did, it was.

So am I correct to assume that, according to this description and the other answer, that this falls under the 4th amendment and since the person in question initially answered questions they implicitly gave up this right and are thus accountable when they decide to stop talking?

The guy initially "cooperated" and answered questions and, at a certain point, finally just shut up and refused to speak anymore. It was ruled that the fact that he suddenly decided not to "cooperate" and became silent could be used against him.

I imagine the state arguing it to the jury similar to this: "Mr. Doe was helpful and cooperative at first and happily answered our questions. Then, when we asked him about <insert crime here> he stopped being cooperative and refused to answer any more of our questions. If he wasn't involved with <the crime>, why wouldn't he continue to cooperate?"

Seems like another reason to never start talking in the first place. Thanks!

Basically, the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" isn't as absolute when facing questioning outside of police custody (when you aren't free to leave) or a court room. You need to specifically invoke it under the Salinas decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com