Lenk observed that “given the nature of the right at issue - the right to remain silent - it seems sensible to recognize that a suspect may well communicate through conduct other than speech.’’
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley harshly criticized the SJC’s conclusions, saying the court had introduced uncertainty over what police need to do while questioning suspects.
“The Supreme Court and other states nationwide have adopted clear standards to establish when a defendant invokes or waives his right to silence,’’ Conley said. “This opinion does the opposite. It doesn’t help police do their jobs better. It confuses what’s expected of them and sets the table for even more litigation down the road.’’
The SJC’s ruling grew out of the Oct. 10, 2008, arrest of Brandon M. Clarke by two MBTA Transit Police officers investigating a groping incident in a subway station.
Clarke, who is in his 20s, was taken to Transit Police headquarters, where Officers Christopher Ahlborg and Audrina Lyles began their interrogation by giving him his Miranda warnings as required by federal and state courts.
Clarke, according to a transcript included in the SJC’s ruling, asked whether he was required to answer the officers’ questions. He was told that the decision was his and that nothing would happen to him if he invoked his constitutional rights.
“I just want to go home,’’ Clarke said.
“You just want to go home?’’ Ahlborg told him. “So you don’t want to speak?’’
At that point, according to the courts, Clarke “shook his head back and forth in a negative fashion.’’
Ahlborg later told Boston Municipal Judge James W. Coffey that he concluded the head-shaking by Clarke meant that he wanted to stop the questioning. But Lyles, his partner, testified that she thought Clarke misunderstood the situation and that the suspect wrongly assumed he would be released with no charges being filed against him.
