Slashdot Mirror

"No, I do not consent to any search."

Insufficient.

  According to news reports of the stops in Texas, peoples' breath was being sampled by officer-worn "non contact" breathalyzers before they were notified and without consent.

  A surreptitious search is still a search. There SHOULD BE lawsuits over this.

Even more insufficient, because it's a vehicular stop.

As long as a vehicular stop is non-discriminatory (i.e., everyone has to pass through the checkpoint), it's a legal stop and all rules about plain sight apply.

And technically, you CAN smell alcohol on someone's breath. The breathalyzer just helps determine if you reek, but are under the limit and are legal, or if you need to be detailed.

Vehicular stops are special - if they're non-discriminatory, you can be searched "in plain view" (i.e., passenger compartment, no trunk nor glove compartment). Also, when asked to exit the vehicle, stand close to the front - if you're close enough to the trunk that you can reach it, that gives them the right to search "anywhere you can reach".

The Illustrated Guide to Law has a general good overview of what makes a vehicular stop special over any other sort of stop.

A downmod on this is a shame. Allow me to rephrase in a less inflammatory tone:

Lawyers are not necessary in every situation, but should be readily consulted as soon as they are needed, and not a moment later. Lawyers, as a profession, exist solely to provide advice. If you have the slightest doubt about the law's application, you should call a lawyer immediately. On the other hand, if you're comfortable with the situation and understand well what the risks are, getting a lawyer is often an unnecessary expense.

Unfortunately, lawyers' time is expensive, because they are highly-skilled and highly-educated professionals. There are few good solutions to this problem, but some cities do have legal assistance charities that have lawyers on staff for basic needs, and often receive pro-bono assistance from other local lawyers. Look into such an organization, and be able to call them when needed.

To avoid the hassle and expense of a lawyer, the other option is to learn the law yourself. There are several good resources online (my favorite is the Illustrated Guide to Law, which provides a good summary of laws in an easily-accessible format, with an explanation of why the law is how it is), and the local library is an excellent place to get information on local ordinances, as well.

Once you've put in the time to learn your rights (your actual rights, not the exaggerations and myths so often spouted on forums), you have little to worry about when talking to police. Most importantly, you should not (and have no obligation to) commit to anything you are not absolutely certain of - and you should be certain of very little. Even if you witnessed a crime directly, for example, and are sure you saw someone in a black hoodie, that may have been an illusion from the lighting, or your mind may be unconsciously be associating the real perpetrator (who wore a black hoodie) with someone else wearing a blue coat. Unfortunately, even our own memories are terribly unreliable, and we often can't realize it.

For this reason, you should be extremely cautious when phrasing your statements. Phrases such as "as I recall" and "I think that..." are vitally important for marking those parts of your statement as unreliable. If you don't know something, say so rather than speculating. Give written statements whenever possible, so there can be no misunderstandings about what you say. Never intentionally lie, and be aware of the officers' time constraints. His job is to gather evidence about the event, not to hear you ramble on about how you know your rights and are intent on exercising every last one of them.

You are not legally required to assist in an investigation, but you are not legally allowed to hinder it, instead.

the summary is wrong, and once again the editors are stupid for letting it through.

Unless the downloaders knew that the original uploader was Prenda, or the uploader advertised itself as PRenda (or a representative), there is no implied license.

A private party acting as the agent provactuer is a bit of a grey area, but generally speaking, given that the there was no reason to think the distribution was authorized, the downloaders still knowingly chose to break the law.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=701

The way they got the instructors was by having undercover agents tell them that they wanted to beat the polygraph to facilitate a crime.

It's a crime to help somebody else commit a crime. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

If the agents had simply asked the instructors to teach them how to beat a polygraph test, it would have been hard to get a conviction. Instead, they told the instructors that they wanted to beat a polygraph test for the purpose of committing a crime.

Several people familiar with the investigation said Dixon and Williams had agreed to meet with undercover agents and teach them how to pass polygraph tests for a fee. The agents then posed as people connected to a drug trafficker and as a correctional officer who’d smuggled drugs into a jail and had received a sexual favor from an underage girl.

As soon as the "customers" started to talk about illegal activities, the instructors should have refused to deal with them and given them their money back.

Chad Dixon, who wasn't too sophisticated about these things, might have fallen for it. But I don't know how Doug Williams, who used to work for the cops, could fall for it.

I don't know if there's any legal duty to report your suspicion of the commission of a crime. I don't think so, but they included child sex into it for a reason. It might be good for them to say, "You know what? I think you're an undercover agent." Then they could (correctly) argue later that they didn't think the claim of committing a crime was credible.

I'm going to drop this here.

It's a wonderful introduction to the issues at play, simplified enough to be easily understood, but not so simple as to be irrelevant.

For one, he had suspicions; that alone is the legal boundary.

Is that the legal boundary? If I work in a hardware store, and somebody wants to buy a bolt cutter from me, am I supposed decide whether I'm suspicious that he might use it to steal bicycles?

That's not what the comic books say. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

... but I do read law comic books.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502

And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505

"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.

The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.

The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?

(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)

As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?

Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.

A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.

You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.

I suggest you read the entire comic book.

But here's somebody who is and wrote a comic book about the subject.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

The US legal system explicitly is NOT about teaching somebody a lesson. It is not designed as a reformation system, it is a punishment system. Not only is he unlikely to learn that his actions were wrong, they're unlikely to try to teach him that.

You can learn using pictures at http://lawcomic.net/guide/

And if a convicted felon doesn't deserve life even after repeating the same felonies, with potentially thousands of victims, I don't see how you could assume that any amount of time in prison would "teach" them anything. If you measure how many people could be harmed by the financial disclosures, and divide it by the number of years of his expected lifespan, even a first offender at most felonies are going to get a larger punishment. He won't live long enough to "pay" for his crimes, so I'm not sure how a life sentence would be disproportionate.

I say, if he is found guilty, throw away the key. And yeah, these charges are too serious for him to ask for a speedy trial... he's the one that would be hurt by that, the prosecution has their case already, his guilt is in the evidence. It is the defense that is most advantaged by time to prepare. A speedy trial protects the innocent against having pre-trial detention abused to hold them without conviction, it doesn't really protect the guilty from having a large and complicated case with a boatload of evidence brought against them. And as a convicted felon, he has less presumption of innocence than the average man, and more presumption of flight risk.