Does your right to remain silent mean that you don't ever have to respond to a police officer's question?

The right to remain silent comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. To understand this right, it might be helpful to see just what it says. "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...." Others have given some cases were you may not remain silent. Based on the wording of the amendment I would like to suggest another. The amendment specifically states that you can not be forced to be a witness against yourself. That is, if you have committed a crime, the law enforcement personnel cannot force you to admit that you are guilt. However, if you are not a participant in the crime in question, but are just a witness, then you are not covered by this protection. Indeed, keeping silent is a crime in and of itself because by doing so, you are protecting the guilty. In this case keeping silent makes you and accessory to the crime which is a prosecutable offense. Most of the time prosecutors don't go after potential witnesses for this offense, because they can't prove that the witness actually knows something. (It can be awfully hard to prove what someone actually knows or saw.) However, that does not mean that you are any less guilty nor that they won't go after you if they can.

Andrew, yes, but we are not discussing freedom of speech. We are talking about the right to NOT speak. Thus, the mention of the 5th amendment.

This is a complicated question and we need to clarify a few things before it can be answered meaningfully.

The line "you have the right to remain silent" is from the "Miranda Warning." I won't go into the whole history of the case that led the warning, but it only deals with the issue of what statements are admissible as evidence in a court of law. Your Miranda "rights" do not apply to every situation.

For instance, if you are stopped on suspicion of a traffic violation, the officer has every right to ask you for your identification and your drivers license, and you are generally required to respond. If you do not Miranda will not help you.

If you live in a jurisdiction that has loitering or vagrancy laws, officers are generally allowed to ask for identification and other pertinent information such as where you live and what you're doing in that location at that time and you are required to respond. Again, if you choose not to answer, Mirando will not help you.

Most jurisdictions also have laws or regulations that allow an officer to question anyone they find in a suspicious location or engaged in a suspicious activity, and require the citizen to identify themselves and answer questions regarding their presence and activities. Miranda isn't going to help you if you don't answer in this kind of situation, either.

The only thing Miranda does is make everything you say from that point on clearly admissible as evidence.

That DOESN'T mean that you can say anything you want before that point! Although the following example will not necessarily be true in all places, I know for a fact it is in one state: If an officer pulls over a driver on suspicion of drunk driving and asks "have you been drinking?" the answer is not admissible as evidence unless he has given the Miranda warnings first. (Note that he can still ask the question, it's just that the answer is not admissible evidence.) However, if the same officer in the same situation simply comments "Gee, you look like you've had a good time tonight!" and the driver says "I sure have, we went through 2 kegs of beer at Tony's party," the answer is admissible evidence as a "voluntary statement."

These days legal questions about your "rights" are always very complicated. There are seldom any clear-cut answers and the answers may well vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

BuckyKatt, the Constitutional right you are refering to is from the Fifth Amendment, which addresses your right to refrain from making self-incriminating statements. That's not the same as "the right to remain silent," which comes specifically from the Miranda warning. The Miranda WARNING tells you some of your rights, but those rights are not generally referred to as "Miranda RIGHTS." If you feel you have a better answer, you need to post it as an answer, and not cram it into your comment space. That way others have the chance to rate YOUR understanding of the subject.

Andersen777: Thank you!

mike blair: You might want to check that before you act on it. As I said, most jurisdictions do have rules or regulations (not necessarily laws) that allow a police office to require that an individual identify themselves and/or account for their presence in a particular area. While these are largely aimed at dealing with vagrants and suspicious individuals in high-crime areas, there's no way to adequately define that, so where they exist that can apply everywhere and to everyone. If you doubt me, go do something suspicious and refuse to identify yourself when the nice officer asks, and see what happens. Make sure you have your lawyer's number with you when you do. Also, please remember to rate answers on how well they answer the question asked. The question was whether the "right to remain silent" meant you could refuse to answer a police officer's questions. It doesn't, as I explained in the answer. Whether you HAVE to answer is a different question, and one that wasn't asked.

Here's a scenario you probably don't want to test. If the police have probable cause to stop you and you refuse to answer anything, and don't have any identification, you will then find yourself on the way to the station where you'll be fingerprinted and given a place to relax while the police await a return on your prints. Consider this on some Friday evening before a 4 day weekend.

Usually, following the reading of the Miranda, the subject is asked, "Do you understand your rights?" So, technically- you are required to acknowlegde the question. I suppose shaking your head up and down could mean yes without actually speaking.

The spirit of the statement allows the subject an opportunity to say nothing regarding the situation in which they were apprehended.

You are not required to say anything which might incriminate you, but you do have to identify yourself.

There are a couple of situations in most U.S. jurisdictions in which you are required to answer a police officer's questions. Failure to do so could result in your arrest. These are: when a police officer has observed you loitering and has reason to believe you are a threat to public safety, or when the officer has observed you committing a traffic violation. In these cases you are required to supply information such as your name and address. The 5th Amendment does not protect your right against self incrimination in these instances, the rationale being that you were observed in the act by the officer. If you fail to comply with the officer's demand for ID or an explanation of your activities in the above situations, the infraction is considered more serious and provides grounds for arrest (failure to cooperate with an officer's reasonable demands). You don't have to utter a word in providing ID and documents. As to traffic violations, keep in mind that driving in the U.S. is considered a privilege and not a right. You do not have a right to drive a vehicle but are granted that privilege only if you comply with a strict set of rules. One of those rules in most jurisdictions is that you must readily supply your driver's license, registration and insurance upon a police officer's demand if you are pulled over for a violation. Even if you aren't arrested, you would almost certainly lose your driving privilege for failing to comply.
Miranda does not attach until a suspect is in custody. At that point a suspect must be "mirandized". Anything a suspect says before being placed in custody may be used as evidence in a court of law. This distinction is tricky for officers as well the suspect. After an arrest, the suspect's words can only be used in court with the suspect's permission (waiver of the 5th Amendment protections). There are rumblings in the legal community that strict Miranda Warning enforcement may be overturned, on the ground that most Americans are aware of these rights through TV and media exposure. The idea is, we are responsible for knowing what our rights are without being told by a police officer.
Keep in mind that the interpretation of the Miranda decision can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Yes, but If you are being read your rights, thing a going pear shaped rather quickly. The easiest way for any police office to convict a subject is get him/her to confess to the crime. It's a common "trick" the police use time and time again. There are a couple of things I would do if put in that position. NEVER answer a question that might imply that you are a guilty party, or somehow involved (regardless if you are or are not). Never take for granted that what any police officer is say, is true. They are taught to word questions in certain ways, to get the subject to believe what a police officer says is true. If there are more than one person being questioned, they will work on creating conflict between the two of you. Don't believe a word of what they are saying. You can refuse to answer any question at any time. There is also no point in being nice in the hope that they will let you off. Also, you don't need to refer to them, as "Sir" Police officers have not been knighted by the Queen of England. Though in saying all that, co operating with showing documents does help keep the situation under control. The police are paid to fight crime. If there is investigation work that they need to do in order to convict someone, let them do their job, rather than you providing all the answers for them

For a Canadian there is absolutely no requirement what so ever to speak to a Police Officer with only a couple of exceptions.

The only time you are required by law to speak to an Officer is if you have a Criminal Record and in that case, you are only required to give them your name.

Short of a record the only other time you have to talk to an Officer is if you are the driver of a car which has been pulled over. And in this case, you are really only required to hand over your License, insurance and ownership. While you don�t actually have to speak to the Officer, handing over your ID is pretty much the same thing as identifying yourself.

Since I have no Criminal Record and my Drivers License is in fact a �404� (Which is a Military Driver�s License that I can use to drive any Civilian Pattern vehicle and technically only have to present this to Military Police or Royal Canadian Mounted Police) I *NEVER* speak to an Officer. I have in fact walked right past Officers who have wanted to speak to me with out saying a word. On top of this, I have gotten in to more than one heated debate with Police after doing so. I had one attempt to arrest me for �Failure to comply with a lawful order� only for the Officer to discover he had watched one too many episodes of Law and Order.

I am a firm believer in exercising my rights simply for the sake of exercising them. I truly believe that if citizens do not ensure that they know and use their own rights they WILL be trampled on by the State. Of course, that�s not as much of a threat in Canada given that OUR version of the �Patriot Act� is no where near as far reaching and has a Sunset Clause.

Yes. However, it might be beneficial sometimes to be cooperative. Depending on the situation if you do something wrong and its obvious that you did something wrong and the officer knows that you know that you did something wrong, he might give you a break for being forthright in the situation. But if you want to be a hard-nose about it- and push the law to the letter, the officer will also do likewise. Along those lines if you do something wrong and you know that its a very hefty penalty and its obvious that punishment is inevitable, then you very well might do better remaining silent, letting your attorney get you out of jail and then going from there.

Yes. The 5th amendment protects the rights to self-incrimination, and the right to remain silent (one of the three rights demonstrated through the Miranda Rights [the others being the right to an attorney and the right to have an attorney provided if you cannot afford one] in the case of Miranda v. Arizona [1966]). This also includes the fact that you are allowed to "ignore" a police officer, but only if your answer is self-incriminating, which it usually can be.

EDIT: As stated below, and as implied in my original answer, these rights come into play as you're being arrested.

Yes, this is exactly what it means. this is the purpose of the miranda warning. just a personal note......if you are placed under arrest, the police already have enough evidence to convict you, and reading of the miranda warning is just a formality, required by law.

how many times on the show cops have they said if your truthfull and tell us whats going on and what you did it will be good for you..

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

what a joke they are just wanting you to make thier job easier they arent helping anyone but themselves and other cops..
give them your id and say nothing more !!!!

Here is a simple way to decide how much cooperation to give the police offer. Ask the police officer this: “Can the information I give you, be used in a court of law to prosecute me.” If he says yes, then give him nothing except the 5th. Amendment. If he say no, then tell him to give you a document of immunity from persecution, and you’ll then be happy to answer all his questions. At the first moments of a police encounter, a person should ask the officer if he will honor their U.S. Constitutional rights, if he says no, then you should call for police assistance immediately. Always remember, police officers are employees of we the people.