Slashdot Mirror

You need to read the rest of the law because it explicitly contradicts your point:

"This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States." (emphasis added)

Hint: if a non-lawyer has a theory about how a common police tactic is actually illegal and you can't find any lawyers arguing it, you're probably wrong. I'll just leave this guide about entrapment here, because it's the next bit of law people are likely to get laughably wrong.

All of Damore's errors I noticed were because he was a strongly biased leftist. You call him a Nazi? Ok -- he's that member of the Nazi party who dared to say "hey guys, why do we call the Jews an inferior race if they're easily testable as the very best group when it comes to intelligence? And why do we murder gypsies as "non-Aryans" if any anthropologist can tell you northern Indians are aryan but Germans are not? And why do we follow that mme Blavatsky drivel if we claim to be scientific?".

So he was one of extremists who committed the worst sin: dared to debate the party beliefs. For any religion (whether it identifies as a religion or not), the most hated are those of their own side who are not orthodox enough. A good read is here -- late in the page I linked and the next one.

That's not what self defense means.

It's not self-defense unless there's someone that a reasonable person (not someone angry) would expect to cause physical harm to you right now. No, some kind of nebulous harm to society doesn't count, nor do words, nor does anything in the future. You have to prove they were using fists or weapons right now. Fighting words (extreme provocation) is basically dead. The standard is a reasonable person, not someone who is angry and spoiling for a fight.

Yes, Law Comic is very good, I will second that recommendation.

If you want a good law movie, oddly enough, My Cousin Vinny is one of the more realistic movies. Many of the others are... not so good.

I am not now a supporter of National Socialism, nor have I ever been, Mr. Mcarthy. And I don't have a Facebook account, either. I also detest the brownshirt types, like the terrorist group Antifa, who go around preemptively physically assaulting anyone who has a differing opinion. Not to mention the idiot racists often found on Slashdot.

I also know the various elements of conspiracy. It's reasonable to say that liking the Facebook page itself shouldn't be illegal, even if there might be a technical argument about trying to recruit people to an attempt to cause a violent riot. But it's not unreasonable to say that the police can't even investigate the people who publicly expressed support for an attempt at causing a riot. That's cause enough to investigate and see just what they were plotting and what steps they actually took to move forward with the conspiracy.

So in the end, I merely believe that we shouldn't prevent the police from investigating people who conspired to commit violent crimes. It's funny how agitated you get at the idea of that.

"I am a model citizen"

Think so?
Read this: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1...

For reference, I will defer to an actual lawyer. The Illustrated Guide to Law is an absolutely fantastic reference for basic legal fundamentals. Two pages in particular are good places to start for a particular example, applicable in this case.

By coincidence, it even addresses the privacy issue: There's no such expectation while in someone else's home.

The rest of the series is also great material for understanding the principles involved.

For reference, I will defer to an actual lawyer. The Illustrated Guide to Law is an absolutely fantastic reference for basic legal fundamentals. Two pages in particular are good places to start for a particular example, applicable in this case.

By coincidence, it even addresses the privacy issue: There's no such expectation while in someone else's home.

The rest of the series is also great material for understanding the principles involved.

For reference, I will defer to an actual lawyer. The Illustrated Guide to Law is an absolutely fantastic reference for basic legal fundamentals. Two pages in particular are good places to start for a particular example, applicable in this case.

By coincidence, it even addresses the privacy issue: There's no such expectation while in someone else's home.

The rest of the series is also great material for understanding the principles involved.

How exactly do you think this constitutes entrapment? What, precisely, did the FBI allegedly do here that forced people not already predisposed to visit CP sites to visit their sites? It seems to me that you're simply promulgating an old myth about entrapment, in that merely giving someone the means to commit a crime they were already predisposed to commit is 'entrapment', when this is not so. If that's what you think, please read this guide written by an actual lawyer.

There's a reasonable discussion of harm minimization here as to whether the interest in catching predators using the sites outweighed allowing them to continue to exist, but the idea that giving would-be criminals an opportunity to commit crime somehow constitutes "entrapment" is one of the most common myths.

Now, it is true that the standard reasoning given for why possession (as opposed to production) of child pornography is illegal is very much at odds with the idea of keeping the site live, in that they're ostensibly re-victimizing those portrayed in the CP sites they permit to live. However, that is by no means the only rationale as to why mere possession should be illegal. But if you want to argue that, you'd do well to discuss it in more detail rather than simply dashing off some ill-premised missive regarding an FBI operation that happened months ago.

"Playing along" with a sting operation is dumb, though, if you take acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. You're not a LEO. You don't have immunity. You should simply refuse to take part and instead film the people allegedly goading you into it. You can find a guide to the law on the subject here.

A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.

All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.

Actually, to arrest him, you need probable cause. Otherwise you run the risk that the arrest was not done out of probable cause and because of that, the warrant was therefore invalid since the arrest was invalid.

Now, it is actually legal to seize evidence without a warrant, providing you can prove there is a time-sensitive nature to it.

In this case, the police have information that the surveillance footage contains important information to arrest the guy. But without seeing that footage, they technically can't arrest him. So in the meantime, while we ponder how the police are going to get evidence to arrest the guy, but they can't arrest him now (not enough evidence) the guy is free to do whatever, including destroy evidence.

Judges generally look down at warrantless evidence, and they usually convene a subtrial to figure out if the evidence should be thrown out or not.They look to see if exigent circumstances exist to allow the evidence to be used without a prior warrant - i.e., is it possible and likely the evidence would've been destroyed during the time to get a warrant. There's a lot of case law and interpretation behind it - if it was a surveillance system belonging to the building, for example, then it would've been tossed out (it is unlikely the building manager would erase the evidence, and most likely, if you ask nicely, they'll turn it over without questioning).

Oh, and there are times when it is LEGAL for law enforcement to enter your home without a warrant, probable cause or anything else (called "hot pursuit"). In fact, if they came in (during those circumstances) and you're openly doing drugs inside your house, they can arrest you for that, even though in a normal situation, that would be highly illegitimate! (No, most of the time, the cops are not allowed to enter a private residence without being invited or if they have a warrant, except in the narrow case.of hot pursuit).

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2...

We as a society want crime off our streets. So, we want officers to do their job as effectively and efficiently as possible. If someone's in the process of committing a crime, we want it stopped. Waiting for a warrant to get processed is time the perps have to get away and for the crime to go unpunished, and nobody wants that except the criminal.

As I've said repeatedly before, Law Comic is your friend. Borrowing from this page: "Rules are respectable. They're how things are supposed to work. But police officers sometimes see the rules as obstacles that get in the way of justice. And some criminals see the rules as handicaps they can take advantage of, to get away with it. And so, in real life, the rules are often ignored in favor of a kind of rough "street justice"." Besides, as this comic notes in a later section, most arrests get plea bargained anyways, making illegally obtained evidence a moot point.

To put it another way, ask yourself this question: What would upset you more, allowing a criminal to go free because evidence cannot be obtained legally, or arresting a criminal using evidence that was obtained illegally? (For the purpose of the question, assume the person has indeed committed a crime.)

There's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity".

I understand your feelings about immunity, but it's a very important and necessary process in obtaining testimony. The Illustrated Guide to Law does a very good job in explaining all the reasons why immunity is used, but here's a short paraphrase:

1) Everyone has the constitutional right to refuse to testify when said testimony can be used to incriminate oneself (now or in the future) of a crime.
2) The only means of forcing a witness to provide self-incriminating testimony is to grant them immunity from incrimination.
3) Deciding whether or not to grant immunity all comes down to what is more important for the prosecuting agent: prosecuting the witness or obtaining the witness's testimony.

In this case, we all know they want to see Clinton hanging from a rope; a low-level tech is not on their radar. They want the testimony, and they want it badly; therefore, they offer immunity.

She might be knowledgeable about the law, which would only require something like "correspondence must be handled in a secure manner". Not being a sysadmin, she would not reasonably be expected to know (without further consultation) that her server was not secure.

Similarly, Pagliano may have known that the server setup was not secure, but may reasonably have been ignorant of the security needs the law requires. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, anything he said about the lax security of the server would be self-incrimination, and therefore protected under the Fifth Amendment. Granting him immunity removes the risk of self-incrimination, and allows him to present his evidence.

That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way". We'll find out soon enough.

It's no a question of punishment.

Well...it is, actually. It shouldn't be, but it is.

What it all comes down to is a question of the purpose of prison—and, indeed, of any court sentence.

As the excellent Illustrated Guide to Law lays out, any of our court sentences have five related purposes (and which purpose is most prioritized for a given sentence informs what the sentence is going to be like): Punishment, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Removal and Retribution. At present, at least, America tends to focus heavily on Punishment and Retribution. That's what all the Tough On Crime laws are about: if you do something bad, you will be punished for it so that we feel like you've been hurt as much as the people you hurt. That's also partly about Deterrence.

Prison, specifically (and the death penalty, if you think about it), can usually serve the purpose of Removal—separating the criminal from the general population (aka "their potential victims," in many people's eyes, especially in the case of a registered sex offender). And, indeed, as some other people point out, if your real intention with a sex offender registry is to prevent them from coming into contact with potential victims, then the obvious solution is to just keep them locked up for life. Or kill them.

But I think most people would agree that, for most offenses that can land you on such a registry, that's too extreme. And all of this ignores the most utilitarian purpose of a court sentence for a crime: Rehabilitation. Helping the criminal to change whatever it is about themselves, or their life, that caused them to commit the crime in the first place. With a "classic" sex offender, this would have to include some kind of psychological component. Indeed, it might involve a lifetime of counseling, therapy, and/or drugs...but if we actually wanted to prevent people from committing these kinds of crimes again, rather than just hitting them on the head with the big freakin' hammer of the State from time to time when they reoffend (either in truth or merely by technicality, by breaking some condition of their registration), then we should pay a lot more attention to the mental health aspects of them than just thinking of the chiiiiiildren.

Dan Aris

It's no a question of punishment.

Well...it is, actually. It shouldn't be, but it is.

What it all comes down to is a question of the purpose of prison—and, indeed, of any court sentence.

As the excellent Illustrated Guide to Law lays out, any of our court sentences have five related purposes (and which purpose is most prioritized for a given sentence informs what the sentence is going to be like): Punishment, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Removal and Retribution. At present, at least, America tends to focus heavily on Punishment and Retribution. That's what all the Tough On Crime laws are about: if you do something bad, you will be punished for it so that we feel like you've been hurt as much as the people you hurt. That's also partly about Deterrence.

Prison, specifically (and the death penalty, if you think about it), can usually serve the purpose of Removal—separating the criminal from the general population (aka "their potential victims," in many people's eyes, especially in the case of a registered sex offender). And, indeed, as some other people point out, if your real intention with a sex offender registry is to prevent them from coming into contact with potential victims, then the obvious solution is to just keep them locked up for life. Or kill them.

But I think most people would agree that, for most offenses that can land you on such a registry, that's too extreme. And all of this ignores the most utilitarian purpose of a court sentence for a crime: Rehabilitation. Helping the criminal to change whatever it is about themselves, or their life, that caused them to commit the crime in the first place. With a "classic" sex offender, this would have to include some kind of psychological component. Indeed, it might involve a lifetime of counseling, therapy, and/or drugs...but if we actually wanted to prevent people from committing these kinds of crimes again, rather than just hitting them on the head with the big freakin' hammer of the State from time to time when they reoffend (either in truth or merely by technicality, by breaking some condition of their registration), then we should pay a lot more attention to the mental health aspects of them than just thinking of the chiiiiiildren.

Dan Aris

t's like they've never even been exposed to the concept that it's possible for technology to fail spectacularly.

As opposed to human beings, which never fail spectacularly. Especially never behind a wheel. /s

Perhaps support for autonomous vehicles is not so much about believing autonomous vehicles are failsafe, but that autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers. Human drivers are notoriously bad at driving. We don't really have the perception necessary to drive, as as this video shows, where many people won't be able to count the number of passes successfully. Quite frankly, our brains tend not to have the capability to accurately perceive the world around us.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/an... indicates that the protection is against testimony. I assumed (but did not clearly indicate) that they already know you have a diary in a lockbox, and in fact where the lockbox is, at which point what they need is a warrant, not your testimony. If they don't know about it, then you telling them about it would be testimony.

That said, the phrasing I originally used was based on http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2... and the discussion on previous pages, and could probably be expressed more precisely.

I've probably spent more time in training and education than the average lawyer, yet I earn 1/10th what they do.

A quick check shows that lawyers near you average C$71,777 annually, and that's after two to four years of postgraduate study in a specialized field, with ongoing continuing education.

In comparison, the median salary for your profession in your area is C$63,154, with no postgraduate studies or CE requirements.

However, lawyers get to write the laws, so a whole bunch of otherwise simple matters require a lawyer to write the above mentioned letters, because the law says they have to. It's a racket.

Yes. IT admins also get to build computers, so that's why our jobs are so easy, right?

If you actually want to learn how law really works, I strongly suggest reading The Illustrated Guide to Law, which presents a good summarized history of the (US-centric) legal principles in use today. It touches on the mistakes made in the past, and how they've been corrected to produce a more just (though more nuanced) modern legal system.

You can, at most, defend yourself in your own home from invaders. Even in Texas, it's not legal to chase people down the street and stab them. Here's a guide to the subject because most people are misinformed or worse regarding this.

To be fair, witnesses should have zero credibility.

Start here: Intro to Eyewitness Identification, still ongoing. Then go back to the beginning, it's a good read.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282

This is a good place to start

No. It wouldn't even have been entrapment if the the agent had gone to Ulbricht "you should kill the guy who's been stealing Bitcoins" and Ulbricht could simply have said "no". It would be entrapment if the agent corrupted Ulbricht into doing so.

The Illustrated Guide to Law - Entrapment

Do they have a good reason to be firing the weapon?

"Justification" is a thing. You can argue in front of the jury that yes, you broke the law against firing weapons in city limits, but you were justified in doing so because reasons, and they may or may not agree with you.

So, are the neighbors just randomly firing their guns in their air for shits and giggles? If so, he would not respond favorably. If they're firing their shotguns in the air to defend their property and privacy from flying surveillance devices, he'd probably tell his daughter to go inside for a bit while he goes and helps his neighbors deal with a nuisance.

That's basically it in a nutshell. The first time he told the story wrong could have just been a BS session. Could have been a simple mistake is relating it, could have been a bit of bravado to a buddy. Don't know. Doesn't matter. Not the point.

Point is, the way our memory works is that very act of retrieving a memory can change it. So when we mistell the story once, it doesn't take long or much for it to -become- the memory, particularly when the memory is still somewhat pliable. ie, before it's been locked in by repetition, as repetition reinforces the neural connections and makes them more inflexible; but if the mistelling is what's been repeated it's what gets locked in. The Fish Tale, and its variants, is a classic example of this too. Few of us always recall and retell every story completely accurately without the intention of lying or being untruthful. In our minds we are being completely truthful.

The Illustrated Guide to the Law (lawcomic.net) actually covered this really well recently too, in talking about the fallibility of eye witnesses, starting about here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2...

Nope, doesn't work that way. For a good (and entertaining) explanation, read the Illustrated Guide to Criminal, particularly the section about Mens Rea: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1...

Of course, in the actual world we live in, I would not be surprised in the slightest if the local DA didn't file charges against each one of the five, and alas it would really wouldn't surprise me either to learn that the first three adults all pled out, not wanting to risk a trial.

Nope, doesn't work that way. For a good (and entertaining) explanation, read the Illustrated Guide to Criminal, particularly the section about Mens Rea: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1...

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=4...

This explains it all, with pictures. Rehabilitation is a thing, but it is mostly a TV thing.

There is a lawyer who's doing some nice comics that explain all those intricacies - he has a strip covering dogs.

However, dogs are still BS, for the simple reason that a signal from the dog is considered to be probable cause, which is ridiculous because they can be conditioned quite easily to do so at the handler's signal (and often do it without the signal just to please the handler).

You should really understand what legal 'entrapment' actually consists of before saying that. Because a lot of things people think are entrapment don't count.

And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to put out bait cars and whatnot to give opportunities to commit a crime. It's not their fault if you say "yes" if someone invites you to engage in criminal activity.

> That never made any sense. If the search was illegal, he didn't have the authority to do it...so it was....by very definition....outside the parameters of his job. He was NOT acting as a police officer if he was conducting an illegal search.

You can find an explanation of that in this guide to the 4th amendment exclusionary rule. The short answer is that they WANT searches to go right up against the absolute limit of legality.

This is because the purpose of the rule is not to give people who do bad things a get out of jail free card when they're caught breaking a law or punish the cops for making mistakes--something which is pretty unreasonable when even the courts disagree about what is and isn't allowable half the time. The purpose is to protect us from actual police over-reach, where someone sics the cops on you to go out there and find something that you're guilty of.

Those just mean you don't have to try to run in the face of an imminent threat. If you're running at me with a knife, I don't have to try to run first, and then if running fails, shoot you. I can stand my ground and shoot you. But again, that's in imminent threat, which is the only time you're allowed to use force against somebody else. Also, "stand your ground" only exists in some states. In others, you have a "duty to retreat" if you have a perfectly safe means of doing so. If you're running at me with a knife (imminent threat!) but I'm in my car and can just drive off and call the cops, no, I can't shoot you. I had a perfectly safe means of retreat.

OP said "credibly threatens to kill Bob's family in the future." "The future" does not mean "any second now." Certainly not if there's time for Bob to arrange a murder-for-hire against Fred (the perpetrator). Or, in point 5, for Fred to arrange to hire Gino to do the deed. When you go looking for the guy who threatens harm to your family at some indeterminate time in the future, you're not "standing your ground." You're actively chasing the guy.

And stand your ground or not, you had a perfectly safe means of escape. There's nobody there trying to stop you! Pack up your family and drive away. Call the cops. Hire somebody not to hunt down and murder the bad guy, but to defend you. There are always other options. Use deadly force without an imminent threat for which there is no safe retreat is murder. There is no "but he deserved it!" defense. Fred's a bad guy, no doubt. But you do not get to be Judge Judy and executioner.

OP is wrong on point 5, too. "If Fred's credible threat is to hire Gino to do the kidnapping, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred." Nope. This is even less imminent! Fred's got to contact Gino, negotiate fees and methods, etc. Tons of time to flee or get help!

Law Comic explains it better than I. That section is justified self-defense, then defense of others, and then use of deadly force against a very real but non-imminent threat (i.e., premeditated murder).

Perhaps the court needs to expressly rule that the use of technology to gain information about what is going on inside someone's home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. It seems obvious to me that this is a breach of everyone's constitutional rights.

That is absolutely nonsensical. Do eye glasses count as technology? Does sitting in a car and looking out the window count as technology? Subjective laws are never a good thing.

The distinction that everyone seems to be missing is a matter of principle. Would it be legal for someone not working as a LEO to use one of these devices nonconsentually? Probably not, it would probably be considered stalking, voyeurism, etc.

I believe the threshold was "is the product commonly available to everyone". So stuff like eyeglasses are valid technologies police can use because the public has easy access to them.

A thermal imaging camera, until VERY recently (say, 2014) cost a lot of money and was not readily available, and thus its use was primarily limited to the police and limited commercial entities. So the court is right in that it cannot be caused because the equipment was not available or commonly used by the public.

Of course, these days, when thermal cameras are sold off the shelf in retail stores and available online for a couple hundred bucks (the FLIR One was sold inside Apple stores, while the Seek Thermal is a $200 dongle for your iOS or Android device), the argument against might actually change because thermal imaging IS available to the public.

Anyhow, apparently the use of the radar was incidental to the search - there was already enough reason to search the home (as part of an "emergency exception" that allows searches without a warrant). Yes, it's a fairly big loophole in that your home can be searched if a criminal breaks in while police are chasing them and YOU charged with crimes incidental to the other crime. Interestingly, the use of radar would be of aid to the homeowner because if police can determine there's no one in the room, they're not allowed to search it! Whereas if they did it the "traditional way" of hunting the suspect they'd have every right to search.

(FYI - The Illustrated Guide to Law is an extremely interesting and informative guide to what the law REALLY says and how it evolved, and how some things aren't as you'd expect. Some of your rights can be so easily given up mistakenly (and it's designed like that because prior to some event, it was all over the place).

Perhaps the court needs to expressly rule that the use of technology to gain information about what is going on inside someone's home constitutes a search and requires a warrant. It seems obvious to me that this is a breach of everyone's constitutional rights.

That is absolutely nonsensical. Do eye glasses count as technology? Does sitting in a car and looking out the window count as technology? Subjective laws are never a good thing.

The distinction that everyone seems to be missing is a matter of principle. Would it be legal for someone not working as a LEO to use one of these devices nonconsentually? Probably not, it would probably be considered stalking, voyeurism, etc.

I believe the threshold was "is the product commonly available to everyone". So stuff like eyeglasses are valid technologies police can use because the public has easy access to them.

A thermal imaging camera, until VERY recently (say, 2014) cost a lot of money and was not readily available, and thus its use was primarily limited to the police and limited commercial entities. So the court is right in that it cannot be caused because the equipment was not available or commonly used by the public.

Of course, these days, when thermal cameras are sold off the shelf in retail stores and available online for a couple hundred bucks (the FLIR One was sold inside Apple stores, while the Seek Thermal is a $200 dongle for your iOS or Android device), the argument against might actually change because thermal imaging IS available to the public.

Anyhow, apparently the use of the radar was incidental to the search - there was already enough reason to search the home (as part of an "emergency exception" that allows searches without a warrant). Yes, it's a fairly big loophole in that your home can be searched if a criminal breaks in while police are chasing them and YOU charged with crimes incidental to the other crime. Interestingly, the use of radar would be of aid to the homeowner because if police can determine there's no one in the room, they're not allowed to search it! Whereas if they did it the "traditional way" of hunting the suspect they'd have every right to search.

(FYI - The Illustrated Guide to Law is an extremely interesting and informative guide to what the law REALLY says and how it evolved, and how some things aren't as you'd expect. Some of your rights can be so easily given up mistakenly (and it's designed like that because prior to some event, it was all over the place).

For simplified (and entertaining) explanations, read the fifth amendment guide at lawcomic.net. And here's a handy flowchart.

They only must stop if you have also asked for your lawyer. The "right to an attorney" means "right to an attorney to be present at all interrogations." So they cannot continue to interrogate you after you've asked for an attorney. And "interrogate" does not mean "put you under a light back at the station and ask you questions." It means any action intended to provoke an incriminating response. So perhaps they could ramble on about the case and see if you react. And if you don't specifically invoke your right to silence, your silence can be used against you. See Salina vs. Texas.

If you've only invoked your right to silence but not an attorney, they're supposed to stop questioning you. If they don't, and you answer anything, those answers cannot be used against you during trial. However...if answers that you give them lead them to new evidence, that evidence can be used at trial. If you said "I invoke my right to remain silent." And they say, "sure, sure. But say, you wouldn't happen to know where the knife is?" and you foolishly say "Oh, yeah, I threw it in the dumpster," they cannot testify that you said you threw the knife in the dumpster. But they can go get the knife from the dumpster and present the knife itself as evidence. Also, if you tell them something (in response to questioning. That should have stopped, but didn't. Not something you voluntarily say) and then you say something different at trial, they can now introduce what you said to them here. On the stand you say "I never had a knife" and the cop can say "actually, he told us he threw the knife in the dumpster." You were either lying to the cops then or the court now, and you can't do either of those things. That is a different matter than the crime you were accused of.

Also, after time has passed, they can come back and start asking you questions about a different matter than whatever question you invoked your right to silence on before. And then you need to assert your right again.

So you have to clearly say you invoke your right to silence, AND that you want an attorney present, AND then shut your stupid mouth.

These ideas primarily involve times you are in police custody. Custody means "I can't just walk away." If you can just walk away...do it. This is about dealing with interrogations where you can't walk away.

For simplified (and entertaining) explanations, read the fifth amendment guide at lawcomic.net. And here's a handy flowchart.

They only must stop if you have also asked for your lawyer. The "right to an attorney" means "right to an attorney to be present at all interrogations." So they cannot continue to interrogate you after you've asked for an attorney. And "interrogate" does not mean "put you under a light back at the station and ask you questions." It means any action intended to provoke an incriminating response. So perhaps they could ramble on about the case and see if you react. And if you don't specifically invoke your right to silence, your silence can be used against you. See Salina vs. Texas.

If you've only invoked your right to silence but not an attorney, they're supposed to stop questioning you. If they don't, and you answer anything, those answers cannot be used against you during trial. However...if answers that you give them lead them to new evidence, that evidence can be used at trial. If you said "I invoke my right to remain silent." And they say, "sure, sure. But say, you wouldn't happen to know where the knife is?" and you foolishly say "Oh, yeah, I threw it in the dumpster," they cannot testify that you said you threw the knife in the dumpster. But they can go get the knife from the dumpster and present the knife itself as evidence. Also, if you tell them something (in response to questioning. That should have stopped, but didn't. Not something you voluntarily say) and then you say something different at trial, they can now introduce what you said to them here. On the stand you say "I never had a knife" and the cop can say "actually, he told us he threw the knife in the dumpster." You were either lying to the cops then or the court now, and you can't do either of those things. That is a different matter than the crime you were accused of.

Also, after time has passed, they can come back and start asking you questions about a different matter than whatever question you invoked your right to silence on before. And then you need to assert your right again.

So you have to clearly say you invoke your right to silence, AND that you want an attorney present, AND then shut your stupid mouth.

These ideas primarily involve times you are in police custody. Custody means "I can't just walk away." If you can just walk away...do it. This is about dealing with interrogations where you can't walk away.

You might want to read this. Or perhaps start here.

Yes, you can just "stay silent." But that won't stop the interrogation, and your silence can and will be used against you. You might want to read Salina vs. Texas. If you invoke your right to silence and request a lawyer, interrogation must end without presence of a lawyer and nothing you do or do not say can be used against you.

Otherwise the cops are free to go right on talking and observing you. And at trial..."I asked Mr. Ihtoit if he killed the victim and he said nothing. Just sat there like a stone. I told him how brutal the scene looked. Over the next three hours I told him several times about the horrific scene. The blood. The poor victim's family. Not a word from Mr. Ihtoit. His silence was chilling. I've been on the force for 15 years now and I've never seen anyone react so completely without emotion as Mr. Ihtoit. There's a monster in there for sure."

Once you're in custody, the magic words are "I invoke my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer." It doesn't make you look more guilty. They already think you're guilty, or they wouldn't have taken you in to custody. You can't talk your way out. You can't silence your way out. Invoke your right, ask for a lawyer, and shut up.

You might want to read this. Or perhaps start here.

Yes, you can just "stay silent." But that won't stop the interrogation, and your silence can and will be used against you. You might want to read Salina vs. Texas. If you invoke your right to silence and request a lawyer, interrogation must end without presence of a lawyer and nothing you do or do not say can be used against you.

Otherwise the cops are free to go right on talking and observing you. And at trial..."I asked Mr. Ihtoit if he killed the victim and he said nothing. Just sat there like a stone. I told him how brutal the scene looked. Over the next three hours I told him several times about the horrific scene. The blood. The poor victim's family. Not a word from Mr. Ihtoit. His silence was chilling. I've been on the force for 15 years now and I've never seen anyone react so completely without emotion as Mr. Ihtoit. There's a monster in there for sure."

Once you're in custody, the magic words are "I invoke my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer." It doesn't make you look more guilty. They already think you're guilty, or they wouldn't have taken you in to custody. You can't talk your way out. You can't silence your way out. Invoke your right, ask for a lawyer, and shut up.

No. Cops are absolutely allowed to break the law undercover. Do not spread myths, please.

I'd like to see a reference for that, actually.

My understanding is that if the police have a legal reason to be looking where they're looking, they can respond officially to whatever they find. To use your example, if they pulled you over for speeding because their radar gun was malfunctioning, they would have had a legal reason to stop you, and a legal reason to do a basic search (like looking in the car windows for weapons). If they see a bag of weed openly, incidental to the search for weapons, they can legally arrest you for it in a completely separate case from the speeding incident. The speeding ticket would easily be thrown out, but the fact that they found you with drugs is unrelated, because it was found during a legal search (unless the officers knew their radar gun was malfunctioning, and use it as a pretense for searching cars, but "bad cops" wasn't stated in your example).

The whole flow of logic is presented nicely at The Illustrated Guide to Law, as is often the case.

You ought to learn a bit more about entrapment before trying to discuss it.

The determination of what someone would otherwise have done is based on what they do, given the means (and even encouragement). All the guy had to do was say "no".

eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.
im not saying that to pass judgement on anyone in any actual ongoing situation.

its simply just just a sad fact of life for legal proceedings: human memory is unreliable and fallible.

read from here ( http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=3... ), onward

Answer: "No, we aren't." Later: "You're under arrest." "But you said you weren't cops!" "We lied."

I understand your concern about corporations breaching your 4th amendment rights, but your reasoning is misplaced. In fact, this case is a great example of the 4th amendment being followed, not circumvented.

The 4th amendment does not guarantee protection against search and seizure; it limits when and how searches and seizures can be exercised. Here's a portion of the 4th amendment for you: "...no Warrants shall [be] issue[d], but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In this case, Google's tip was not used as evidence to convict this man of a crime. Google's tip was used by police to justify probable cause that a crime had been committed. (This does not mean he's guilty of the crime, only that there's a greater likelihood that he committed it than he didn't.) The police used this information to obtain a search warrant. I'm sure that the evidence they used to convict him was gathered through the exercise of that warrant.

Google's tip is no different than a tip coming from any other source. Say a bank teller (for association's sake, let's say the bank was incorporated) was just depositing some money for a customer who drove up to her window, and she saw in her security camera what she believed to be a missing child. She calls police and reports what she saw. The police go to the bank and look at the recorded camera footage and agree that the image captured does resemble a missing child. They grab the license plate number from the footage, trace the registration to its owner, obtain a search warrant, go to the owner's residence, search the premise, find the child, confirm it's the missing child, and convict the individual of kidnapping (and probably a host of other charges to boot). In this circumstance, private information (whether an e-mail sitting on Google-owned servers or a bank's CCTV DVR) shared with police is used to meet probable cause and obtain a warrant. And in both circumstances, a search and seizure is warranted.

If you want to minimize your risk of a warrant being issued against you, don't display evidence of a crime outside of your own home. (And when the police come knocking on your door and politely ask you, "May we come in?", unless they flash a warrant in your face, don't be polite back.) And while IANAL, for more information about the 4th amendment and warrants as written by one, I strongly recommend you read The Illustrated Guide to Law. Very, very informative.

CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.

If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate? At least keeping silent (or lying in ways not easily checked) can be a form of revenge.

It's very digusting behavior given that the formation of English law whence America gets many of its concepts of rights. Torture was recognized as ineffective in the 1300's because it works too well, anyone will confess to anything. Here's an illustrated guide for you and yours demonstrating why the CIA practices can't yield justice. The threat of torture is meant as an example to others who go against the will of the CIA, it is effective as a threat, and those imprisoned are doomed to suffer as examples to the others, not as a means of protecting anyone's freedoms.

They can search anywhere within reach in the car. That basically means the entire passenger compartment.
The trunk, not being "within reach" demands a higher level before they get to search it.

start reading here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1...

The 4th defines what is reasonable

Nope.

The Fourth Amendment declares two things. First, there are to be no unreasonable searches or seizures. Second, separated by the word "and" in the text, warrants must be specific. The Fourth Amendment was written to stop the oppression tactics the British used to disrupt businesses, where the British officers would search someone, seizing everything vital for daily life, so regardless of whether the citizen was actually ever accused of a crime, they'd be unable to continue functioning. That power was enabled by a general warrant, which the British government used to authorize a person to search anyone, anywhere, at any time.

The Fourth Amendment cuts off the general warrants by requiring particularity, and prohibits searching without prior reason by prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not attempt to define what is reasonable, nor does it even require that warrants be issued for searches.

Try again.

Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches.

A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".

A 'fishing expedition' and search prior to an arrest, without warrant, IS unreasonable.

Try again.

Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches.

A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".