What other things can you tell me about the right to remain silent?

You must tell the police "I want a lawyer and I want all questioning to stop" to invoke your constitutional rights and the police are supposed to stop the interrogation at that point. Go to my website at carneylawny dot com to print out the Miranda Rights Form for people to carry in their wallet in case of police contact.

The subject of Miranda is a vast and deep topic. It all depends on what you want to know. The Miranda is a good place to start, but they are many subsequent cases that have further defined and clarified it. I would suggest you check out the following: Edwards v Arizona (1981) holding that once a suspect invokes his right to silence or an attorney, the police must cease questioning him and can only resume questioning if the suspect initiates it Berkemer v McCarty (1984) holding that Miranda Warnings not required during routine traffic stops Illinois v Perkins (1990) holding that Miranda not required when the suspect is speaking to an undercover officer or the suspect does not know the person is a police officer New York v Quarels (1984) holding that the police may ask a suspect incriminating questions without Miranda Warnings if the "public safety" is at risk Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990) holding that routine booking questions (i.e. age, name, address) do not count as incriminating questions for Miranda purposes Harris v New York (1971) holding that a statement made in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the witness suspect at trial Dickerson v US (2000) holding that the Miranda decision was constitutionally based on the Fifth Amendment and not just a court created rule.

A person is entitled to have the rights read to them if they are in custody and subjected to interrogation. If there is just an investigation, questioning people who may be witnesses or have knowledge, no need because they are not in custody. Same with a defendant who is not in custody (although cops will generally play it safe and Mirandize a target or potential target of an investigation.) A person arrested and taken to jail without questioning some times gets their rights but it does not matter if they do. The only "punishment" if you will for the failure to Mirandize is if the person is questioned and gives inculpatory (guilty) information, that information will be suppressed (unless police can show they would have gotten it from another source.) Very complicated. Also, there are some cases now that are trying to water down the Miranda case further saying, essentially, that a person who has been through the system and knows the drill does not necessarily need his rights given because he has heard it all before. That will be the subject of further litigation. Also, if a person in custody just blurts out inculpatory stuff, not in response to questioning, then that is admissible. But again, the circumstances could vary that because there have been cases where cops were driving in a suspect and talking about how sad for the mother that the dead person's body can't be found, yada yada, with the intent to get the guy to up the body, and he does. That may, or may not, be suppressed, lots of factors to consider.

Miranda only has to be read after someone is arrested (ie. cuffed). Then, only if they intend on interrogating the suspect post-arrest. Most cops are trained to get everything they need from the suspect's mouth prior to arrest, so Miranda issues are rare.

You need to start with one of the more recent cases, like Berkemer v McCarty or some of the state supreme court cases to see how Miranda rights have been eviscerated over time.

It needs to be affirmatively asserted. In other words, no passive right to not be questioned. Also, you can waive the right to silence after you have asserted it. That opens the door to continued questioning and opportunities for self incrimination.