My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e

@AustinSauter

2 ай бұрын

When are you going to do a video on New Jersey vs. TLO?

For the first time in my life I have to say I agree with Justice Breyer. You don't have to declare you're invoking your First Amendment right to religious freedom before praying, or shout to the world that you are invoking your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms before purchasing a firearm. SURELY, the Fifth Amendment should protect you whether or not the police tell you you have it, and whether or not you said you'd use it.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Well put. It's so weird how this one got so ideological when it doesn't seem that it had to be. Sure, Salinas probably was guilty, but that should not matter to the outcome of this case.

@CityBeautiful

6 жыл бұрын

Yep, that's spot on how I felt after watching the video (though this probably isn't my first time agreeing with Breyer).

@zacharyhenderson2902

6 жыл бұрын

Mr. Beat right. I was especially shocked to see Scalia concur with the majority. With his history of extending our constitutional rights into the Modern Age, like he did with the 4th Amendment in _Kyllo,_ and the 2nd in the _Heller_ case, it's weird to think you wouldn't extend 5th Amendment protections to pre-custodial 'interrogations,' for lack of a better word.

@zacharyhenderson2902

6 жыл бұрын

City Beautiful I saw your new video on planting trees in urban areas. I've never even thought of the shade an evaporative cooling effects they provided before.

@Compucles

2 жыл бұрын

Check the text itself: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." If you volunteer information, that's not being "compelled." Even the Miranda Warning states that "anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law."

The 5th amendment should be a passive buff granted to everyone, not an active skill with a cooldown.

@gavinbalter9464

5 жыл бұрын

I agree this Nerf is totally unfair

@Akira-ss6cm

4 жыл бұрын

That's a brilliant way to put it. My gamer self salutes you.

@justfrankjustdank2538

3 жыл бұрын

my life is like a video game trying hard to beat the stage all the while still collecting coins

@Compucles

2 жыл бұрын

The 5th Amendment is a right, not a guarantee. It only protects you from being "compelled" into self-incrimination. If you choose to talk anyway, that's your own fault.

@DoctorChained

2 жыл бұрын

@@Compucles Er what? Did you even watch the interview? Salinas v. Texas states that your own silence can be used against you.

I agree with the minority vote. Shouldn't have to invoke it to have it.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

So far it seems that all of the commenters agree with you.

There's two times it does not benefit you to speak to the police: when you're guilty, and when you're innocent.

I do not agree with this. If someone refuses to answer a certain question, it doesn't make them guilty. To me, this case opened the door for the 5th to influence the jury's decision without substantial evidence. This could still lead to guilty verdict.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Very good point

@Compucles

2 жыл бұрын

The substantial evidence was the matching shotgun shells. The refusal to answer was only used as probable cause for a search warrant.

@brunothebat4122

6 ай бұрын

⁠@@iammrbeat Although, from the whole story, I actually doubt that even if the court ruled that they can’t his silence as guilty, they still got evidence he committed a crime. Only thing that’d be thrown off the table is the silence admitting guilt. I actually would argue he already incriminated himself before he became silent, for handing the police evidence before the arrest willingly. The only thing I disagree with is the silence being admission of guilt. I argue that hard evidence is needed, not tentative evidence. Sure, he’s guilty in this one, but what if that person was actually innocent and didn’t get interrogated before? Their silence couldn’t be used, still.

Terrible decision by the Supreme Court you shouldn't have to say your invoking your Fifth Amendment right to invoke it I don't know if this is a good example but think if you had to say I'm invoking My First Amendment right to free speech before you said anything controversial or the government could send you to jail for your ideas if they didn't like it

@zacharyhenderson2902

6 жыл бұрын

thatcoolkidjoey I agree 100%. I wish I had seen your comment before I made mine, because I said almost the exact same thing.

@Freadauk

6 жыл бұрын

I fully agree as well this decision is terrible especially in context of other rights.:gun owners don't have to specifically say they have the right to bear firearms before a purchase, Minorities don't have to specifically say they are protected they are protected by the 14th amendment to receive equal treatment. women don't have to cite the 19th amendment to be able to vote; so by that logic citizens(Salinas was not even a suspect in this case when he was interrogated) should receive there 5th amendment rights without them having to specifically ask for it.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Essentially what the Court is saying here is that the self incrimination clause is not as important as other parts of the Bill of Rights.

@jaredlangley6924

5 жыл бұрын

Stop comparing Nukes to hand grenades. They aren't even the same thing.

@judithpecho1520

5 жыл бұрын

The US Supreme Court ruled this year that police can break into your house without a Warrant for Search signed by Judge if there was just cause. Now we know where that will go. They have just cause to execute mentally ill on the street for being homeless, and for shooting your dog or harming your child on a search in a house with the wrong address. Getting more like Germany. Just consider who is sniffing down Trumps back. We will be one big open air Gaza camp, complete with 800 FEMA camps with guillotines and caskets, rail cars being fitted with shackles in Oregon at this moment.. Sorry but "The Grand Old Flag" song just doesn't move me anymore.

I would think an unfortunate side effect of this decision is that people won't want to talk to the police. Sounds to me like, unless you are under arrest, or under a legal order, don't voluntarily agree to any questioning.

@forzaacmilan36

2 жыл бұрын

That’s exactly what should do. Even former chief justices have said that you never talk to the police without a lawyer present

@johnr797

Жыл бұрын

Also, probably don't volunteer to have your gun tested if it's the murder weapon...

Your videos are seriously underrated. Keep up the good work

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! :D

@jonaboktr5269

4 жыл бұрын

Darius Johnson I agree here, you rock Mr. Beat

@antboooy

3 жыл бұрын

The president songs are the best

Kind of ridiculous that a fundamental right to silence isn't granted just by being silent. You have the right to remain silent, yet when someone remains silent, they're incriminated based on the fact that they're silent? What in the world?

Great video! Also, will you be doing a series in the future on Supreme Court Justices? Like on the descions they made?

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

That's a great idea. I also could rank them!

Keep up the good work! At least one person is learning new things from your videos.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much. That makes me happy to hear :D

I always plead the 5th

One of the most egregiously incorrect Supreme Court rulings in recent history. The best way to exercise your fifth amendment rights in a way that prevents prosecutors from using that against you now is to invoke your sixth amendment right to an attorney and say nothing else. If you repeat, “I want my attorney,” in response to any question, they can’t currently use that against you in court, and you aren’t incriminating yourself by either staying silent (which the prosecutor can argue indicates guilt) or by giving up potential details that may appear incriminating. Because of Salinas, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,” now also conceptually applies to the specific verbiage you used to invoke your fifth amendment rights, since the case establishes that there is a nebulously right and wrong way to invoke those rights, and that the wrong way can be used against you. However, since an ordinary citizen wouldn’t be able to foresee all the ways their invocation of the fifth amendment could be argued to be “wrong” under Salinas, it’s better to just do nothing but ask for your lawyer until they provide one to you.

You should do profiles of Supreme Court justices

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

That'd be a lot of fun.

@joshuacoleman8000

5 жыл бұрын

I second that, Luke!

@Lyle-xc9pg

4 жыл бұрын

stupid socialist kid

Please Do Sweden Vs. Norway, that would be really cool

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Eventually...mos def!

@PierreaSweedieCat

6 жыл бұрын

Second the motion! Also Sweden vs Denmark, and Sweden vs Finland!

Salinas should’ve argued that the brothers he killed never invoked their right to life so they weren’t protected by it

i disagree with this ruling so bad, the 5th should've applied

Thanks Matt, you've done it again :)

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Glad you dug the episode. :D

Oh boy do I love these briefs!

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

That makes me happy :)

Please could you do London and Dublin compared

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Great suggestion :D

In the Star Trek DS9 episode “tribunal” chief O’Brien is arrested for murder on trumped up charges. The authorities told him “you have the right to remain silent but doing may be construed as a sign of guilt”

Ever since we have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court we see the most baffling cases. Making it harder to fight for your rights.

Thanks a lot for your effort 👍 🙏 👏 🙌 🙂

Okay, so I looked at this a little more closely, because this was the most surprising result in this series so far, to me. Reading a bit of Alito's writing on this, it seems like Garner v. US could have warranted a mention - with approaching this issue from the other direction in mind, this seems like a much more ambiguous issue. I ultimately disagree with the decision and think that the majority was wrong to choose to approach it from the angle they did, I'm no longer certain that either the majority *or* the dissent was necessarily legally incorrect. I've found that it's very common for this to occur, where supreme court decisions which I disagree with to still be well-considered and reasonable.

Dealing with cops shouldn't be a high stakes trivia game.

I always wondered why suspects said “I plead the fifth.”

I’ve watched so many of these Supreme Court briefs videos I feel like I could pass my state Bar exam

How do i have a right to remain silent if i need to speak in order to say i have the right to remain silent. Makes no sense, just not saying anything is exercising my right to remain silent, by being silent....

@JayeEllis

2 жыл бұрын

You can indicate using non-verbal means if you choose.

I would be curious to know the statistical effects this case created.

Link for music?

An important phrase to know if you encounter the police is, "I claim my 5th amendment right to remain silent".

@Compucles

2 жыл бұрын

You still don't actually have to claim it. Just refuse to say anything without a lawyer.

@jyshot

2 жыл бұрын

@@Compucles Correct never talk to the police alone

@Valyssi

Жыл бұрын

@@Compucles You have to invoke it explicitly according to Berghuis v Thompkins. It's stupid, I agree (and so did the dissent), and a court _may_ still find that your right is protected even if you didn't invoke it explicitly, but to be safe you should be explicit. Doing so you can cease the interrogation, otherwise they can hold you "until you crack" or until you explicitly invoke your right to remain silent or legal counsel

thank you for including a clip from the best tv show of all time (the wire)

its like self defense laws, you can stand your ground, but how is it going to look in court if you chase after a burgle firing to kill. I don't think the court would see that as "self defense," without significant proof. in the same respect, salines had volunteered, he also remained silent. the context of the situation was enough to infer guilt. his silence was not the key factor in his guilt the fact that the information lined up, was. to put it simply his silence was only good to warrant an investigation, not produce guilt. salinas could not be found guilt because he was silent, he could be found guilty because there was significant physical evidence. "he is not talking your honor, we think there is enough here to connect him to the crime, can we get a warrent *gives info about shotgun*" "ok *signs warrant*" the law is upheld, nor does it conflict with previous rulings.

You revealed Scalia and Thomas in the wrong order

What shotgun type was it as if it wasn't a too uncomon type then the shells matching the gun would do nothing to help them, i would think

This is a really tough one. I'm not sure if I agree with the majority or the minority here.

President During this time: Barack Obama Chief Justice: John Roberts Argued: April 17, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013 Case Duration: 57 Days Decision: 5-4 in favor of Texas

This is why you bring a lawyer regardless of the situation

This is crazy scary

Well, it's right there in the Miranda Warning! You have the right to remain silent, but if you choose not to use that right, that's your own fault. After all, "anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law" if you decide to speak up, anyway. While I agree that refusing to answer further questions isn't evidence of wrongdoing in itself, he had already incriminated himself voluntarily by offering up his gun, and even if he hadn't, his suspicious behavior was still enough to qualify as probable cause for a search warrant. The 5th Amendment doesn't protect you against search warrants, as they are not "Incriminating" in and of themselves.

Please do Latvia vs Lithuania comparing video :D

Why did you not include his picture?

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

It's not available publicly.

Have you done the cases involving Nativity scenes in public parks and government buildings? Right there’s a issue with the 10 commandments being placed in a classroom and I think it’s similar to that situation

We still need more precedent on if passwords to encryption are 5th amendment protected or not

@Nimish204

2 жыл бұрын

Don't you mean 4th Amendment protected?

3:32 *active surprise*

Wowzers that is damn near the stupidest argument I have ever heard from a supreme court decision

Although this guy definitely did the murders, this reduced trust in the police is a lot of damage.

So basically don’t even be a little helpful and go to the police if they ask you to come?

If it is a RIGHT why do you have to invoke it?

@jamesmorell1758

4 жыл бұрын

Invoke in this context means to make clear. You invoke your 6th amendment right by asking for counsel. You invoke your 2nd by buying a gun. People just don't give you guns.

@JayeEllis

2 жыл бұрын

To invoke as in 'to cite' - to mention something as a reason why something has happened. As in, 'I'm telling you I have the right to shut up, and I plan to do so.'

Plessy vs Ferguson

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

I did that one awhile back, but it definitely needs a reboot. That was well before I started this series.

So only a known suspect of a crime is allowed the 5th???

I feel a griffin v California coming on.

This was a classic supreme court case of conservatives vs democratic the ones that were in favor of Texas we’re all conservatives the ones that were in all favor against Texas we’re all democratic. If you are not mirandized as in being under arrest or if you’re not aware of your rights and your remaining silent you should not be used as a sign of guilt. In this case it seems more likely that this person was in fact the murderer however there are cases where people have been innocently incriminated based on this stuff. The Supreme Court got it completely wrong here in my opinion.

Imagine a world in which they decided we didnt even have a right to remain silent if invoked... The tactics cops alrdy try to get folks to talk are disgustin even with this right existin, but without it theyd no doubt be open to do anything up to the edge of torture to get you to talk...

The defendant was quite. "DONT GET BRAZZEN WITH ME!"

He could've left at any time. He wasn't detained or arrested. He went down to the police station on his on free will. Only an idiot goes down to a police station and incriminates themselves. I do not see how this weakened the 5th amendment at all.

what if the person who is suspect is mute?

@JayeEllis

2 жыл бұрын

Same as if they don't speak English. They would indicate that. Arrangements can be made. I can't say I've ever had trouble communicating with any of my clients who use less conventional means than speech.

Hmmmm right along party lines

What about all the other evidence against him? They did match the gun with the bullets, and had a witness name him

JUST NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T GO TO QUESTIONING

@johnkerry6312

3 жыл бұрын

there is no warrant for questioning

It suck that this case was brought up by a criminal and not an innocent individual.

@1981lashlarue

Жыл бұрын

Why does that matter?

We don't need a Supreme Court Justice to tell us what our rights are. These rights are clearly written. And all law enforcers claim to know the law better than citizens. So you never have to verbally say I evoke any of my rights, because they exist regardless.

If the 1st amendment is passive why the hell is the 5th amendment not? You don't have to declare your rights. The Supreme Court is deeply wrong here.

Go with your lawyer .

No way does it harm the 5th. It was the shotgun that he gave up willingly that convicted him

@nearn8517

2 жыл бұрын

This very brazenly harms the fifth amendment.

While I don't think you should have to invoke your 5th amendment rights for it to apply, it seems to me that this guy clearly committed a double murder and shouldn't get away with it. For the purposes of precedent, his silence shouldn't be used against him. But even without that evidence, the factz that his shotgun matched that of the weapon used for the murder and that he fled the country. ..

Why all the hastle to bring it through all courts when they just could have used the gun testing and witness report as evidence?

Many people are upset about this decision but the thing is The defendant wasn’t arrested nor was he made to go to the police He chose to go Like the courts still rule that if your arrested you do automatically have the right since your forcibly put there. Truthfully why are you even volunteering going there if you wanna use the 5th you can literally not go and if they do arrest for refusing you then you can fight that in court You could argue that you chose to forgo the 5th by willingly going Where as deciding not to go is actually invoking the 5th

Do you not think that 20 years is enough? What about Amendment VIII? I am obviously not well-versed in any type of law, but it seems more would be just cruel; especially in American prisons, which I find purely sadistic.

@joshuaconrad5782

2 жыл бұрын

For killing 2 people 20 years is too little

@JUNGLEsausage

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshuaconrad5782 But what's the point? In our hypothetical scenario, people have died--what good does it do to effectively take another?

@1981lashlarue

Жыл бұрын

@@JUNGLEsausage A multitude of reasons. The worse thing you can do to someone is take their life. If you do it intentionally and with premeditation, that's even worse. The punishment should fit the crime. Also, it can serve as a deterrence to others.

Did he kill those two brothers?

Don't talk to the police ...... No matter what.

@JayeEllis

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed! They always tell you anything you say can be used AGAINST you; never do they say it can be used in your defense. Other than asserting your right to an attorney, absolutely nothing you say to the police is to your benefit, even the truth.

this is outrageous, the worst scotus decision since plessy v ferguson ( 1896)

unless you're deaf & the police refuse to get you an interpreter

First Yep I said that

But when the prosecutor does the same against the Rittenhouse its not allowed?

@1981lashlarue

Жыл бұрын

Different scenarios. Rittenhouse had properly and unequivocally invoked his right to silence with the police and the prosecutor was improperly attempting to use that against him at trial. In this instance, the subject wasn't in police custody and did not unequivocally invoke his right to silence as SCOTUS now says you must do.

Why is this a thing?

In the Netherlands this could never happen He would be set free.

The Supreme Court got this one wrong. Very wrong.

Weakened? *Violated.*

Very good one. This is one of those very gray areas that l have trouble deciding on. So I'll just agree with the majority.

@eduardorodrigues4648

6 жыл бұрын

Chris Nemec But that is a bandwagon fallacy.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

The only comment so far to agree with the majority. :D

I am salinas

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

I am Sparticus.

3:57 I didn’t know Clarence Thomas was actually white. That makes more sense. And Scalia being black kind of makes sense

Wow, this is a pure bullshit decision. How the hell can you not have the right to remain silent?

This is the stupidest ruling...

So disappointed with Kennedy on this one. You can definitely use a constitutional right even if you don’t say explicitly that you are

You gave to speak to not speak? bs

lol, it feels like texas has a lot of supream problems for the supream court

So you can be incriminated by your words without your Miranda Rights being read? In that case, what’s the point of reading the Miranda Rights at all? Yeah, I disagree with this one.

@1981lashlarue

Жыл бұрын

Miranda only applies when in police custody. Salinas was not in custody. He voluntarily spoke with police and was free to leave at any time. However, they should still not be permitted to use his silence against him as evidence of guilt.

Scalia is my favorite _fite me_

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

I have a love/hate relationship with him.

@JurijFedorov

5 жыл бұрын

Good world view. Bullshit decisions in real life. He said he is pro liberty and pro just reading the constitution as it is but he constantly made decisions that were just conservative and nothing else. Often going against the constitution if the law just was conservative.

So just a reminder to never talk to the police?

this is another case of a assuming you know what that does by assuming it makes an a**s out of u & me!!!

Build the wall!!!

Hopefully this gets overturned someday.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, they definitely need to revisit this issue.

What time is it It's appeal time baby

Hello 👋 people! That haven’t watched this yet.

Law enforcement is always close to my heart; and this prisoner murdered two people, for cryin' out loud!

This video is misleading. The court didn’t say that a suspect had to verbally invoke their 5th Amendment right in order to enjoy the right. The court merely stated that it was ok for prosecutors to use the suspect’s sudden silence as evidence.

@MrWolfking002

4 жыл бұрын

which is stupid

@nearn8517

2 жыл бұрын

They are different but it has the same end result

@interestedparty00

2 жыл бұрын

@@nearn8517, no. The result isn't the same. You have a Fifth Amendment right. The ruling merely meant that prosecutors could use sudden silence as information.

I am exercising my 5th amendment right not to comment on youtube videos. doh!

@JayeEllis

2 жыл бұрын

That's inapposite. How does leaving a comment incriminate you?

@tonyclifton265

2 жыл бұрын

@@JayeEllis cos I was gonna say I'm the real killer of JFK -I'm "badge man" on the grassy knoll, front and right. oswald was only a patsy

Cops basically can go around the constitution, that's what I'm getting from this.