Link to Complete Article
"This article answers a question that has confounded the lower federal
courts: whether a suspect briefly detained under the doctrine of Terry
v. Ohio is obligated to answer police questions posed to her. Although
the Supreme Court has never explicitly found a right to remain silent
during a Terry stop, it has, through dicta, concurrences, and elsewhere,
consistently assumed the existence of such a right. Nonetheless, more
than fifty years after Terry was decided, lower federal courts
consistently deny recovery to those who allege they were wrongfully
arrested for refusing to answer police questions. Interestingly, these
courts rarely reject outright the existence of a right to silence in the
Terry context. Rather, they simply find that because such a right is
not clearly established, officers who arrest suspects for refusing to
answer their questions are entitled to qualified immunity."
No comments:
Post a Comment