Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy held that Salina’s claim that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated failed because he did not expressly invoke his right against self-incrimination during questioning. Alito began with a review of how the Fifth Amendment has historically been interpreted before the Court in a variety of cases and applications. He cited Garner v. United States (1976) to explain that “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination “is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony.” Elaborating this principle, Alito also cited Hoffman v. United States (1951), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not provide an “unqualified right to remain silent,” but rather protects the right to not be compelled as a witness against oneself in a criminal case. Alito also referenced the Court’s decision in Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) that established that a witness’ Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not self-executing. Alito further explained that this is important because it informs the government that a witness is relying on privilege, and it gives the Courts a reliable record to assess Fifth Amendment claims by.  

Alito noted that there are two recognized exceptions to the requirement that a witness explicitly invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege. First, an individual does not need to take the stand at their own trial to assert their privilege, showing that the Fifth Amendment protects the “absolut right not to testify.” Second, an individual does not need to invoke their privilege when they are subjected to the “inherently compelling pressures” that are involved in a custodial interrogation. Established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), this principle requires an individual to be “suitably warned” before they are required to explicitly invoke privilege.  

Applying the principles of the Fifth Amendment to this case, Alito held that the circumstances could not support the allegation that Salinas’ rights were violated. Alito pointed out that Salinas went to the police station on his own accord, participated in the interview voluntarily, and was free to leave at any time. While Salinas was in an interrogation room at the police station with many characteristics of a custodial interrogation, nothing was preventing him from leaving or coercing him to stay, so it was Salinas’ responsibility to inform the officers that he was invoking privilege. Alito concluded, writing, “[s]o long as police do not deprive a witness of the ability to voluntarily invoke privilege, there is no Fifth Amendment violation.