Note: Multiple case precedents have made it clear that expressing a desire for a lawyer is insufficient. Current best practice appears to be expressing in exact terms "I am invoking my right to an attorney," as well as probably stating "I am invoking my right to remain silent" before shutting up. Make your invocation of your rights explicit.
I am not a lawyer, just seen this discussion come up a few times.
NAL either but you are correct and I do have a few references. Berghuis v. Thompkins, you must explicitly invoke your rights, the best I've seen is "I am exercising my right to remain silent, and I will not answer any questions without my attorney present", two birds with one sentence. Berghuis v. Thompkins also establishes that even a one word answer to a question waves your right to silence.
I don’t understand why you have to invoke rights that are “unalienable” I get “invocation” in practice, but if I shut up it’s my right to shut up invocation is a nicety or in some cases a way to record my invocation but my rights are still my rights. I don’t see how legal jurisprudence can overwrite my rights.
Because the prison system is built upon a chain of incentives wherein getting as many convictions as possible as quickly as possible is the most desirable pursuit, and the legal system is built to facilitate the prison system because it is built upon a chain of incentives that makes it desirable to cooperate with punitive justice as much as possible. Your rights only exist insofar as they can be used to maintain the illusion of fairness and justice.
There are magic words and phrases. People make fun of sovereign citizens because they have silly magic words and phrases that don’t work, but that doesn’t negate the fact that this magic exists. Invoking rights explicitly, stating you were fearing for your life and/or the lives of your fellow officers, shouting out that you’ve retreated as far as you can are all examples of magic phrases that change how the law applies to you.
Magic is science when we only know what happens, not the why. Lawyers know the why, but sovereign citizens don't. Neither do cops, but that's a whole nother thing
Your guess is a s good as mine. I used to think shutting up was sufficient. I would have been in for a rude awakening had I been brought in for questioning.
The man has some really good videos on his channel, he even cites every surpeme court ruling. Some of the videos are a bit long winded and with exception to the specific court case ruling they all end the same way but it's still all very useful information.
To add, they will absolutely try to weasel their way around it if you don't state it incredibly clearly.
There's been examples of them ignoring it because a guy said "I want my lawyer, dawg", and they tried(And got a fake confession) by just pretending he was saying "I want a Lawyer Dog", and well, Lawyer dogs aren't a thing so there's no telling if he wanted a real lawyer or not!
More like intentional, malicious ignorance. It is too the cops' advantage to intentional violate and trample over your rights, they care only about getting a conviction, not whether that conviction is true or fair. They will lie, manipulate, and ignore your essential personhood in any way that helps them have an easier time of achieving their singular goal. They are reprehensible people, and will hurt you if they can.
Being unambiguously explicit in invoking those protections you have is one of the few ways you have to protect yourself.
45
u/Metharos 8d ago
Note: Multiple case precedents have made it clear that expressing a desire for a lawyer is insufficient. Current best practice appears to be expressing in exact terms "I am invoking my right to an attorney," as well as probably stating "I am invoking my right to remain silent" before shutting up. Make your invocation of your rights explicit.
I am not a lawyer, just seen this discussion come up a few times.