What does it mean to “Plead the Fifth”? To “plead” means that you have the legal right not to answer police inquiry either in a criminal case or in court. But like many other constitutional rights, this too is subject to wide interpretation by the courts and frequently arouses fierce debate. While rarely referred to as a “constitutional right,” many people believe that it is a vital safeguard of individual rights. This article focuses on three arguments about the constitutionality of a person’s right to not answer police inquiries.

The first argument centers on the fact – that the Fifth Amendment expressly provides that a person may not be compelled to answer questions. “No person shall be deprived of his right of speech or of his right to speak freely,” the Fifth Amendment begins. In short, if the state has the authority to ask questions, a person has the right not to answer. “Pleading the fifth” is therefore not a legally binding option. However, most courts have interpreted the clause to permit some degree of Fifth Amendment immunity from self-incrimination, allowing people to refuse to answer questions on several grounds, including hearsay, testimonial, fruits of a guilty mind, and similar questions.

The second argument against – what does it mean to plead the fifth is that it will chill a free speech right. Some have argued that if a person is afraid that he or she might be asked a question that might lead to incriminating information, the person will avoid answering the questions. This is especially true if the answers are inconsistent with his or her statements already made and could serve to weaken the prosecution’s case. And in the wrong situations, such as an interview with a hostile state’s prosecutor, the chilling effect can be significant. In some circumstances, however, the Amendment protects the right to remain silent and therefore protects against compelled answers.

One of the most common defenses raised by those – who do not know what does it mean to plead the fifth is that the answers cannot be used against them in a criminal case. This argument generally rests on the idea that the Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination, not giving a prosecutor too much power to use evidence against a suspect. However, the court has repeatedly held that it is not always against the law to refuse to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds. In order for a defendant to be guilty of obstructing justice, for example, the failure to disclose a material fact must have occurred in a criminal case. Similarly, one need not admit to the crimes for which he or she stands accused if he or she has reasonable cause to believe that doing so would substantially help the government’s case.

In order for a Fifth Amendment lawyer to successfully argue a Fifth Amendment case – it is important to know when to advise the client to answer, and when to consult with a counsel before making any statements. It is often better to consult with counsel long before a conversation concerning any Fifth Amendment issues, especially where confidential communications are involved. If there is a possibility that the answers could become crucial to the outcome of a trial, counsel should advise their clients before they make any statements. In the same way that it is unwise to discuss matters with an unknown person, it is equally unwise to discuss sensitive information with a person one does not know.

Often, the Fifth Amendment lawyer will advise – their clients to simply avoid speaking to anyone at all, including the police, in any way. There are some circumstances in which this may seem advisable. Such include investigations into potential wrongdoing, particularly in child molestation and drug crimes, where talking to anyone close to a target could constitute self-incrimination. There are, however, other ways in which a Fifth Amendment lawyer can advise their clients to avoid providing answers to questions.

In cases involving vague answers to questions regarding sensitive matters as a matter of law, counsel may advise their clients to invoke what is called the “shield of privilege,” so that their answers will not be used against them in any way.