The most commonly repeated phrase in police drama television shows or movies from police officers prior to or after affecting an arrest is “you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney…� These statements are part of the “ or Warnings� which derives from that protects an individual against self-incrimination which reads:

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law�

The Miranda Rights are warnings that are given by law enforcement personnel to individuals in police custody but prior to arrest, arrested but prior to questioning, during arrest while questioning and after arrest along with post arrest questioning. The manner in which Miranda Rights are depicted in police drama television shows or movies mislead the public.

While the phrases “you have the right to remain silent� and “you have a right to an attorney� is often heard, most citizens do not have a clear understanding of how those statements relate to the Miranda Rights, as well as the interplay of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the . A common misconception is that the Miranda Rights must be read to each and every person arrested. That is not legally correct. The police must give a person their Miranda Rights only if the person is in police custody and they intend to question such person about their alleged crimes. Remember, there are three levels of police questioning, they are: common law right of inquiry, stop and question (sometimes frisk) and Miranda Rights.

Under the Common Right of Inquiry, an exception to the , the police can ask you basic questions such as name, address, and the nature of your conduct. However, the police cannot use physical force to forcibly stop such individual and that individual has an absolute right to walk away without answering the officer’s questions. This is generally true throughout the country. Under , aka Stop, Question and Frisk (New York Criminal Procedure Law 140.50), and exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the police can use physical force to forcibly stop and question such an individual about the nature of their conduct that they reasonably suspect is about to commit, has committed or is committing any felony or misdemeanor in the New York State Penal Law. The person can be detained for a “reasonable period of time� and is not free to leave. Depending upon the brief investigation, the person may be released or arrested. The issues surrounding Stop and Question are complex, not for this blog discussion but, will be addressed in a separate blog discussion. Finally, the Miranda Rights are warnings that are given by law enforcement personnel to individuals in police custody but prior to arrest, arrested but prior to questioning, during arrest while questioning and after arrest along with post arrest questioning. Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution are applicable. It is important to note, that an individual who is in police custody MUST refuse to answer questions and request legal counsel for all of the protections to apply.

Over the years, there have been several court decisions that focused on when and if Miranda even applies. Some courts have allowed statements to be used against an individual prior to being read his Miranda rights and prior to a request for counsel. But, with a recent Supreme , , the Court ruled that individuals in police custody that answer questions then suddenly remain silent essentially waives their Miranda Rights. In other words, silence is a statement of guilt. Now, that is a very scary proposition indeed.

In this case, Genovevo Salinas of Houston, the police requested him to voluntarily come to the police station. Once he arrived at the police station, he was questioned about the double murder of two brothers with whom he had been seen with the night before. He was not in police “custody.â€� Hmm, we will save that one for later. Anyway, Salinas “voluntarilyâ€� answered police questioning for about an hour. Prior to his questioning, he was not read his Miranda Rights. Later in the questioning, the police asked him about some shotgun shells found at the murder scene. They asked him, if they performed Ballistic Tests on the shotgun shells, would they match his shotgun, Salinas remained silent. Based upon his silence, and a subsequent Ballistic match, Salinas was charged with murder, tried, and convicted in part by the court allowing the prosecutor to use his silence on some pre-arrest questions as evidence of his guilt. Salinas appealed on the grounds that his pre-arrest silence should not be admitted as evidence against him because the questioning and alleged statement (silence) violated the of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On appeal, two state appellate courts upheld the murder conviction. One court citing a previous decision written by John Paul Stevens who reasoned that the Fifth Amendment is “simply irrelevant to a citizen’s decision to remain silent when he is under no official compulsion to speak.â€�

The Supreme Court granted Salinas’s petition for writ of certiorari (a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking court to review the decision of a lower court). However, the Court upheld Salinas’s murder conviction ruling “that before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self- incrimination, he was required to invoke it. Because he failed to do so, the judgment of the is affirmed.�

The Court’s decision now makes it absolutely necessary for individuals who find themselves in a pre-arrest, pre-Miranda situation to specifically state that they wish to invoke their right to remain silent and request legal counsel, failure to do so, will result in silence being used as evidence of guilt.

Quite frankly, my personal view is that the Court upheld the unlawful custodial questioning of Salinas because other evidence connected him to the crime. If you review prior Supreme Court precedent, this decision makes no logical sense.

The post Silence As Evidence of Guilt? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, color, religion and national origin. The courts have many times widened the scope of Title VII to include at the workplace. The sexual harassment could be either providing employment benefits on conditions of sexual favors aka “� or the creation of offensive work conditions. A well-known case regarding the hostile working environment is , 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

In this case, an employee brought an action against her supervisor for sexual harassment during the period of her employment at the bank. The employee’s contention was that the sexual harassment was in violation of Title VII of Act. Though the district court had passed an order stating that the sexual relationship of the employee with her supervisor was voluntary, the affirmed the employee’s contention and the also upheld most of the findings of the court of appeals.

The Court of Appeals held that the employee was subjected to a “� form of sexual harassment and therefore, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court further held that in order to determine a “voluntary sexual relationship� there has to be either sexually provocative dress or speech or the welcomed sexual advances of the supervisor by the employee.
There is one aspect in which courts have different opinions. The aspect is regarding the liability of employer for the actions of its employees. In the instant case the employee had never complained about the sexual harassment to the concerned department of the bank. Hence, the bank was not aware of the incidents of sexual harassment of the employee by the supervisor. The Court of Appeals held that the employer is liable for the actions of its employees even though the harassment was not brought to the employer’s attention. The court defined a between the employer and the supervisor in this case. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court of Appeals considered the definition of ‘employer’ given under Title VII that includes ‘any agent.’ However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in its finding with regard to this aspect. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the bank cannot be made liable for the actions of its supervisor when the incidents of sexual harassment were not brought to its notice. Hence, in this case the principal – agent relationship was not established.

Further, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the supervisor is not liable, as the employee had not complained to the grievance department of the bank. The court held that the bank’s grievance procedure includes filing a with the supervisor. As in this case the complaint was against the supervisor, the employee cannot be considered to be at fault for not filing a complaint with the bank. Therefore, the supervisor is liable for sexually harassing the employee by creating hostile working environment in the workplace.

If you believe that, you are the victim of gender discrimination aka sexual harassment contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Hostile Work Environment Due to Sexual Harassment first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..