Problem:
The Case Berghuis v. Thompkins had a ruling in favor of Mary Berghuis. It was decided that if a suspect invokes their Maranda right to remain silent must do so unambiguously invoke that right a-rule characterized by the four dissenting justices as "counterintuitively" requiring a suspect to speak up to indicate that he wants to remain silent (Prenkert et al., 2022). Mr. Thompkins continued to speak even after his Maranda rights were read to him. By doing this, he waved his Maranda, thus revoking his right to remain silent. The line of questioning was not confusing or in such a manner to trick him, so the questions continued as if he understood what was going on. Mr. Thompkins was afforded every opportunity to plead the Fifth Amendment and did not do so. In this situation, no violation of the constitution exists.