Supreme Court leaves defendants between a rock and a hard place

It’s the time of year when the Supreme Court of the United States issues its decisions and nearly every year a few of them have some serious ramifications on criminal defense. Anyone in Minneapolis who read about the ruling in Salinas v. Texas knows that this will have a negative effect on criminal law and defendants’ rights.

The case dealt with the reach of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and pre-arrest silence. Under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant cannot be forced to give information that would implicate him- or herself after he or she has been arrested or is appearing in court. More importantly, a defendant’s silence cannot be used against him or her in court. While not touching those very important freedoms, Salinas made a very clear line as to when that silence can and cannot be used against a defendant.

In a narrow five to four decision, the court held that if a defendant refuses to answer a question by police prior to being arrested, his or her refusal can be used in court. In the case at hand, the defendant was being questioned about the murder of two brothers. Police had been questioning the man for nearly an hour when the defendant wouldn’t say whether the shotgun shells found at the crime scene would match a shotgun found in his home. When he was at trial, the prosecutor used that silence to help gain a conviction.

What this case essentially boils down to is that if police stop you and start asking you questions, but you are not under arrest, if you choose not to answer a question, that silence can be used to incriminate you later. This can leave you stuck between answering a potentially incriminating question and incriminating yourself by silence.

Source: The New York Times, “A 5-4 Ruling, One of Three, Limits Silence’s Protection,” Adam Liptak, June 17, 2013

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

How a DWI Affects CDL Holders in Minnesota

Commercial motor vehicle drivers arrested or charged with driving while impaired (DWI) may need to know how a DWI affects CDL holders in Minnesota. You will lose your Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) for at least a year if you are convicted of DWI for the first time, and forever after a second conviction. The consequences go beyond the immediate legal implications of a DWI conviction. A CDL suspension or revocation will lead to job loss, difficulty finding employment, and serious financial challenges.

How a DWI Affects Rideshare Drivers in Minnesota

Knowing how a DWI affects rideshare drivers in Minnesota allows you to take the right steps to protect your license and livelihood. A DWI conviction will lead to suspension or cancellation of your driver’s license. Once you lose your license, you will be ineligible for a work permit required to work for rideshare companies as a driver. You may also face jail time, fines, or ignition interlock device (IID) installation, depending on the seriousness and number of related offenses on your record.

Can Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant in Minnesota?

People under criminal investigation or whose phones have been seized by law enforcement officers may ask, “Can police search your phone without a warrant in Minnesota?” It’s illegal for police to search your phone without a warrant. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. These exceptions include when you consent to the search, someone’s life is in danger, or there is an immediate risk of evidence destruction.