James Abrenio @jamesabrenio.bsky.social

12 days ago

It’s funny what a big deal a ruling like this is and how surprised the public would be to see what standard is typically applied.

Matthew Segal @segalmr.bsky.social

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT:

*ME Constitution provides greater protection against self-incrimination than U.S. Constitution.

*Any waiver of that protection must be "clear and unequivocal."

*Officers must "stop to clarify" ambiguous waivers. www.courts.maine.gov/courts/sjc/l...

State v. McClain case caption

We do not specify that the waiver be given orally or in writing, but we require that it be clear and unequivocal, like we require for all waivers of constitutional rights. If the waiver of the privilege is ambiguous, an officer must, before any questioning, stop to clarify whether the individual is in fact waiving the privilege against self-incrimination. If, after a suspect waives the privilege against self-incrimination, there is any ambiguous invocation of the privilege, including the attendant right to counsel, the officer must stop any questioning and clarify whether the individual is attempting to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. If the privilege is being invoked, questioning must cease.

Replies

No replies yet