As we all know from numerous TV police dramas, when you are arrested, law enforcement officers are required to tell you the following:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

But in the most illogical move since gleefully handing over the 2000 presidential election to the loser, the Supreme Court has decided by five votes to four that if you want to have these rights invoked, you have to actually tell the cops that you wish to remain silent.

The decision that the individual must explicitly tell police that he or she wants to stay silent is the result of a case - Berghuis v. Thompkins - in which a man was arrested for a January 2000 murder which took place in surburban Detroit. The suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained silent well into his interrogation until a detective asked him if he believed in God to which Thompkins replied "yes." The detective then asked: "Did you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins replied with another "yes", essentially implicating himself in the crime. This led to his conviction and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

I'm not going to defend anyone who has killed another human being, but the law of the land says that even if you are accused of a crime, you have the right to due process. The Supreme Court's decision basically says that Thompkins should have said that he didn't want to snitch on himself before he snitched on himself.

The Miranda Warnings mandate comes from the 1966 Supreme Court case in which Ernesto Miranda was arrested in connection with the kidnapping and rape of a young woman. After he was interrogated, Miranda signed a confession form, but did so without being told of his legal rights as an accused criminal. His attorney argued that the confession was not, therefore, voluntary. Although he was subsequently sentenced to up to 30 years in prison, the case went to the Supreme Court where justices decided that Miranda's attorney was right and his conviction was overturned.

He was later retried without the confession and got the same sentence, but was paroled in 1972. Four years later, Miranda got into a bar fight and was stabbed to death. Ironically, the suspect in his killing exercised his right to remain silent, was released and fled to Mexico. Nobody has ever been convicted of the murder.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in writing for the narrow majority said that while the cops should read you your rights, you should open your mouth if you want to keep them. "Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent," noting that Thompkins waived his right by answering the detective's questions.

But how about when a suspect is intoxicated, injured or otherwise unable to speak -- especially if he or she has a speech impediment? If a cop doesn't know any of this, and a supect doesn't invoke his rights, the advantage is placed on the side of the law enforcement agency performing the arrest -- even if the suspect is innocent. This is in spite of the constitutional dictum of "innocent until proven guilty."

Sure, all you'd have to do is say you want to invoke your Mirandas but why should you if it can be safely assumed that you don't want to have a confession coerced out of you nor that you don't want to incriminate yourself in any way.

In her strong dissention, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supremes' neophyte member wrote that the decision "turns Miranda upside down" and "marks a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination."

Glad you're on our side Mami.