Comment: No you're still

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I disagree. What do you (see in situ)

No you're still

misunderstanding. The ruling isn't saying the 5th amendment is waived. The 5th amendment only says you don't have to speak at any time.

The ruling is correct because it's only clarifying that if you're in a non-custodial interview (not a suspect) then it's the same as an ordinary citizen questioning another ordinary citizen. That means one citizen can submit as evidence the fact that upon a certain question the other citizen remained silent, which a jury could take as relevant to the case.

If you're in a non-custodial interview (not a suspect) and don't want to answer any questions (or have that fact potentially be used against you later) simply leave.