The supreme court justices Samuel Alito answered to this case that Mr. Salina didn't have the right to remain silent. Mr. Salina was free to leave, which didn't insert his Miranda rights and he had therefore no right to remain silent. Justices Samuel Alito stated that Mr. Salina´s should have affirmatively invoked his rights, because without Mr. Salina´s having a lawyer or being told the Miranda rights he should have been more affirmative about his invoking. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html)
Salinas v. Texas is demonstrating the Miranda rules in a way where if the rules doesn´t apply the questioned from the beginning the Miranda rights doesn't apply either. This case pointed out that the 5th and 6th amendment rights included in Miranda won´t apply if a person didn´t have the legal rights in the first place. I believe the supreme court decision in Salinas v. Texas was accurate because without being interrogated and in custody there is no legal rights for the officers to give a person their …show more content…
Commonwealth of Kentucky a student told an assistant principle while the sheriff´s deputy working at the school was presence about him giving drug pills to other students. The student later appealed saying that he wasn't told about his Miranda rights, and started to make incriminating statements. The supreme court of Kentucky stated that when the student was interrogated he was also in custody because of the presence of the sheriff´s deputy, meaning that he should have been told about his Miranda rights. The supreme court was also saying that the students age was a significant factor. They said that no one of the age of 17 would reasonable believe he was free to leave, and he also thought the questions were about discipline and not about criminal chargers as well.
Salinas v. Texas is demonstrating the Miranda rules in a way where if the rules doesn´t apply the questioned from the beginning the Miranda rights doesn't apply either. This case pointed out that the 5th and 6th amendment rights included in Miranda won´t apply if a person didn´t have the legal rights in the first place. I believe the supreme court decision in Salinas v. Texas was accurate because without being interrogated and in custody there is no legal rights for the officers to give a person their …show more content…
Commonwealth of Kentucky a student told an assistant principle while the sheriff´s deputy working at the school was presence about him giving drug pills to other students. The student later appealed saying that he wasn't told about his Miranda rights, and started to make incriminating statements. The supreme court of Kentucky stated that when the student was interrogated he was also in custody because of the presence of the sheriff´s deputy, meaning that he should have been told about his Miranda rights. The supreme court was also saying that the students age was a significant factor. They said that no one of the age of 17 would reasonable believe he was free to leave, and he also thought the questions were about discipline and not about criminal chargers as well.