The easiest $30k this guy ever made

[u/New_Libran]

On October 26, 2022, the judge ruled that Walden's contact with Land should have ended when it became clear that Land was not sleeping in the park or in need of assistance, and that the city was not responsible for Walden's actions.

On November 22, 2022, the city settled the lawsuit for $30,000.

[u/youngsp82]

“I want an attorney” is the only thing you should say to officers.

[u/gilt3t → u/youngsp82]

"am I detained or am I free to go?"

"I invoke my 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment right and will not speak to anyone but an attorney"

It's actually important to specifically state that you are invoking your 4th, 5th, and 6th. Some places like to argue that silence is consent.

[u/Ziplockmoneybags → u/gilt3t]

You don't need to say all that. The guy in the video played it perfectly. "I won't answer any questions and I want an attorney."

[u/gilt3t → u/Ziplockmoneybags]

Did you miss the part where I said you need to specify because some places take silence as consent and reasoning?

ask any attorney and they'll recommend the same.

[u/Ziplockmoneybags → u/gilt3t]

My 20 years as a criminal defense attorney probably carries a little more weight here than your armchair understanding of Miranda.

I’m also not sure how you’ve managed to define “I won’t answer questions and I want an attorney” as “remaining silent.” Those are explicit statements invoking constitutional rights.

The case you’re probably thinking of is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010). The Supreme Court said:

“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’”

At no point does the Supreme Court state you need to reference the specific amendments, just that you need to indicate you want to remain silent as the guy in the video did.

And even if you never formally invoke, you can still simply not answer questions. The consequence of failing to invoke is not that police can somehow force words out of your mouth. It means they may continue questioning you, and if you eventually choose to answer, those statements may be admissible.

That is exactly what happened in Berghuis. Thompkins stayed mostly silent for nearly three hours and then eventually answered a question. Had he simply continued keeping his mouth shut, there would have been no incriminating statement to admit.

So yes: explicitly invoking is better because it requires questioning to stop. But “you must say the magic words or you lose your right to remain silent” is simply not what Berghuis holds.

[u/TheMauveHand → u/Ziplockmoneybags]

It means they may continue questioning you, and if you eventually choose to answer, those statements may be admissible.

Just so I understand: invoking your right to remain silent both forces the questioning to end and renders anything you might say afterwards inadmissible? I was under the impression that it was no more than an empty statement of intent that, at best, indicates to the police that you're a waste of time.

[u/ModusNex → u/TheMauveHand]

It forces the interrogation to stop if Miranda rights are attached, and Miranda rights only attach when you are already in custody and being questioned with the intent to elicit an incriminating statement. If they claim you are not in custody and it's a consensual encounter they can/will continue to ask questions.

After one has invoked their right to remain silent, one could waive that right as long as it's not as a result of further questioning. They could for instance say "I changed my mind, I want to talk" and it would be admissible. There is also what's called a spontaneous admission where it would be admissible if someone were to spontaneously confess without being asked a question.

[u/Ziplockmoneybags → u/ModusNex]

Thank you for adding those details. This is all 100% correct.

[u/throwawaymyballspal → u/ModusNex]

I believe in this video, Miranda would attach once he's not free to go correct? So when he asks if he's free or detained.

[u/ModusNex → u/throwawaymyballspal]

Custody is part of the requirement for Miranda rights, the other part is interrogation. The police can argue their questions were not part of an interrogation, like "what's your name?" is not inherently structured to elicit incriminating statements, so they don't have to issue your Miranda warning for that. The police like to delay an interrogation to see if subjects will provide voluntary information, though sometimes they will issue the warning at the same time as taking them into custody to eliminate any doubt.

In this video I would say they attach when he says "I want a lawyer" while being in custody. He preempts any doubt or delay by invoking his rights immediately. They shouldn't attempt to question him without counsel.

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/gilt3t]

Did you miss the part where I said you need to specify because some places take silence as consent and reasoning?

Did you miss the part where the person you're replying to said, 'The guy in the video played it perfectly. "I won't answer any questions and I want an attorney"'? Does that somehow constitute "silence" in your weirdly presumptuous mind?

[u/No_Gas4560 → u/youngsp82]

I DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS