Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence. was used. Major reform to the questioning and treatment of suspected offenders occurred in 1984 when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
Anything you do say may be given in evidence. In some circumstances, particularly if a suspect has requested legal advice but has not been allowed the opportunity to consult a solicitor, no adverse inferences may be drawn. [5] In this scenario, the appropriate caution is amended to omit this possibility: You do not have to say anything, but ...
The Supreme Court did not mandate a specific wording. [5] A generic admonition might look like this: You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning.
Many countries around the world grant suspects the “right to remain silent” when they’ve been accused of a crime. And sometimes, keeping your mouth shut is the smartest move you can make.
And in any state, police do not always follow the law, DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. Anything you say can and will be used against you. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime. [59]
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.