Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)
Silence alone does not invoke the Fifth Amendment; an explicit verbal invocation is required.
Reinforces: I invoke my right to remain silent.
Read full brief →Legal Foundations
This page explains how each line of the Invocation aligns with United States constitutional doctrine. It is civic education, not individual legal advice.
Constitutional Anchors
- Fourth Amendment — search and seizure
- Fifth Amendment — silence and self-incrimination
- Sixth Amendment — right to counsel
Why Precision Matters
“A suspect who wishes to invoke the privilege must do so clearly.” — Salinas v. Texas (2013)
Courts consistently hold that rights are preserved only when invoked in unmistakable terms. The four-line script provides those terms.
Key Case Spotlights
Salinas v. Texas (2013)
Pre-custodial silence may be used as evidence unless the right is explicitly invoked.
Reinforces: I invoke my right to remain silent.
Read full brief →Davis v. United States (1994)
An ambiguous mention of counsel is insufficient; request must be clear and unequivocal.
Reinforces: I invoke my right to a lawyer.
Read full brief →Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
Once counsel is clearly requested, officers must cease questioning until counsel is present.
Reinforces: I invoke my right to a lawyer.
Read full brief →Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
Consent to search must be voluntary, but silence or compliance can be construed as permission.
Reinforces: I do not consent to any searches.
Read full brief →Florida v. Bostick (1991)
Passive compliance during questioning may constitute valid consent.
Reinforces: I do not consent to any searches.
Read full brief →Florida v. Royer (1983)
Officers exceeded the bounds of a consensual encounter, creating an unlawful detention.
Reinforces: Am I free to go?
Read full brief →Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Brief investigatory stops require reasonable suspicion and are limited in scope.
Reinforces: Am I free to go?
Read full brief →Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004)
States may mandate identification during lawful stops under stop-and-identify statutes.
Reinforces: Compatibility with ID duties.
Read full brief →Line-by-Line Rationale
| Script Line | Key Cases | Legal Effect |
|---|---|---|
| I invoke my right to remain silent. | Berghuis, Salinas | Explicit invocation required; silence alone is insufficient. |
| I want an attorney. | Davis, Edwards | Clear request halts custodial interrogation. |
| I do not consent to any searches. | Schneckloth, Bostick | Prevents silence or compliance from being deemed voluntary consent. |
| Am I free to go? | Royer, Terry | Forces officers to clarify detention status or justify continued stop. |
Compliance Duties & State Variations
The Invocation does not override obligations to show identification where state law requires it (Hiibel, 2004), nor does it cancel license or registration duties in traffic stops.
Further Reading & Downloads
For a full analysis of precedent, see Appendix B of the white paper.
Download the white paper →