[kenthorvath]

The article slams Alito, but the judgment was 5-4. Whenever rulings are this close, it suggests that there are nuances and rationale arguments on both sides.

As disconcerting as this ruling is, there is likely more to this than the headline. For example, it seems that one's 5th ammendment right against self-incrimination is preserved in this ruling so long as one verbally invokes it, i.e., "I plead the fifth".

No, it's not ideal, and it gives a great deal of power to law enforcement, which will sometimes be wielded irresponsibly. But, destroyed? - that's a bit hyperbolic.

[ante_annum]

That's not a new ruling though. Having to claim the right to not self-incriminate was ruled in Minnesota v Murphy, 1984. This is specific to cases where "invokers" have not been read Miranda because they're not under arrest.