<P> In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Supreme Court declared in a 5--4 decision that criminal defendants who have been read their Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self - incrimination to apply . If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police . Those who oppose the ruling contend that the requirement that the defendant must speak to indicate his intention to remain silent further erodes the ability of the defendant to stay completely silent about the case . This opposition must be put in context with the second option offered by the majority opinion, which allowed that the defendant had the option of remaining silent, saying: "Had he wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response or unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, ending the interrogation ." Thus, having been "Mirandized", a suspect may avow explicitly the invocation of these rights, or, alternatively, simply remain silent . Absent the former, "anything (said) can and will be used against (the defendant) in a court of law". </P> <P> Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule . The three exceptions are: </P> <Ol> <Li> the routine booking question exception </Li> <Li> the jail house informant exception and </Li> <Li> the public safety exception . </Li> </Ol> <Li> the routine booking question exception </Li>

When does an officer not have to read miranda rights to an arrested person
find me the text answering this question