It's better to say you want to speak with your lawyer before you will answer questions. The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning. (the recent 2013 Supreme Court decision, Salinas v. Texas, has more on this)
> The fact you remained silent after being asked a question can be used against you in certain situations, especially with a non-custodial questioning.
How is this possible given the 4th and 5th amendments?
The whole argument behind this ruling is that at first the suspect talked and then stopped answering questions. Had the suspect not talked in the first place, then the 5th wouldn't have been voided, but since he did, it was.
So am I correct to assume that, according to this description and the other answer, that this falls under the 4th amendment and since the person in question initially answered questions they implicitly gave up this right and are thus accountable when they decide to stop talking?
Basically, the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent" isn't as absolute when facing questioning outside of police custody (when you aren't free to leave) or a court room. You need to specifically invoke it under the Salinas decision.
