 In essence the Supreme Court ruled the Fifth Amendment ’ s Self @-@ Incrimination Clause does not protect a defendant ’ s refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights . In the concrete case the court issued the following holding : When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings , and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder , the prosecution ’ s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer ’ s question . Long @-@ standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self @-@ incrimination must explicitly claim that protection . This requirement ensures that the government is put on notice when a defendant intends to claim this privilege and allows the government to either argue that the testimony is not self @-@ incriminating or offer immunity . The plurality opinion of Justices Alito , Roberts and Kennedy reiterated two exceptions to this principle : 1 ) that a criminal defendant does not need to take the stand at trial in order to explicitly claim this privilege ; and 2 ) that failure to claim this privilege must be excused when that failure was due to government coercion . The plurality opinion declined to extend these exceptions to the situation in Salinas v. Texas . Notwithstanding popular misconceptions , the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against himself or herself . Therefore , as long as police do not deprive defendants of the opportunity to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege , there is no Constitutional violation . The Court stated that there was no " ritualistic formula " necessary to assert the privilege against self @-@ incrimination , but that a person could not do so " by simply standing mute . " If an individual fails to invoke his right , and is later charged with a crime , the prosecution may use his silence at trial as evidence of his guilt . 
