Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/27/10 18:49, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>     Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
>>> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
>>> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
>> And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)
> 
> 	Well, yes. That's what I meant by "refuse to answer".

Well, you can *always* refuse to answer. The only question is whether they 
get to hold you there until you do. :-)

Even if you're in handcuffs behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, you can still 
refuse to answer.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 20:55, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 01/27/10 18:49, Darren New wrote:
>>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>>     Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US,
>>>> when
>>>> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
>>>> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
>>> And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)
>>
>>     Well, yes. That's what I meant by "refuse to answer".
> 
> Well, you can *always* refuse to answer. The only question is whether
> they get to hold you there until you do. :-)
> 
> Even if you're in handcuffs behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, you can
> still refuse to answer.

	I meant legally.

	I'd make analogies on how we don't say stuff like "I can walk into a
store and eat some food without paying for it", but I guess this topic
is rife with misunderstandings...

-- 
"Once again, Mr. Cutlet fulfilled the sacred oath of the public
educator: To take an inherently fun activity, and sap it of every ounce
of pleasure."
		-- Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years".

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	I meant legally.

Me too.  About the only time you're required to talk to anyone is if a judge 
instructs it.  IANAL, but I don't think you ever have to talk to cops 
without a lawyer around, regardless of whether you're arrested. If you're 
not allowed to walk away, then you can take the fifth.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4B6### [at] hotmailcom...

> I think I even know a Dutch case along this lines: a random guy in a
> (probably flashy, if I know him well) car is followed by two under cover
> policeman that think he might be a person that will drive to fast.
> Indeed he does and after an hour they put him to the side of the road,
> charge him with speeding and confiscate his car because he is driving
> more than 50 kilometer per hour too fast.
> The case comes for a judge and the guy defends himself saying: i have
> seen these two guys already in that town 100km from the place where they
> arrested me. I have seen them repeatedly and of course I was speeding,
> two dodgy looking guys were following me all this time.
> The guy gets cleared, gets his car back and the police gets new
> instructions.

Can speed without repercussions so long as he has good grounds to belive
that he is being followed?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:42:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> About the only time you're required to talk to anyone is if a judge
> instructs it.

Even then it's not required, but there may be consequences to not (like 
earning a contempt citation).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:46:26 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 01/27/10 16:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Here's the thing.  In some parts of the US, there is a problem with
>> drug trafficking.  There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between
>> Omaha and Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state
>> license plates.
> 
> 	How can you be between Omaha and Nebraska?

Brain fart.  I meant Omaha and Lincoln. :-)

>> I consent to let them search the car.  They find the coat; I match the
>> suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description
>> of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.
>> Just for drifting out of my lane.
> 
> 	I would think that your matching the description, as well as your 
car,
> would be sufficient enough reason to stop, but am not sure.

It generally wouldn't be enough for probable cause, in the case of these 
random drug stops.  But in the hypothetical case I put forth, yes, it 
might be.

>> That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions -
>> because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and
>> think you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in
>> fact that is what it is.
> 
> 	Refusing to allow them to search your car is usually within your 
right.
> However, it can lead to an inconvenience. I remember years ago
> reading/being told that if you refuse, they have the right to hold you
> there until sniffing dogs come and sniff. The following seems to concur:

Oh, sure, and they often will inconvenience you for not cooperating as a 
tactic to get you to cooperate.

> http://flexyourrights.org/supreme_court/illinois_v_caballes
> 
> 	Although it implies a limit to how long you have to wait.
> 
> 	I should add that the site actually encourages you to decline a 
search.

That is almost always the best thing you can do.  If you consent to a 
search, *anything* they find can be used against you.  But nothing they 
find can be required to be used to help you.

>> in his car and sits there.  He's writing down everything from the
>> conversation in case you decide to challenge the ticket.
> 
> 	I think that's quite fair - I don't see a problem in that.

Oh, I don't see a problem with that either.  But most people don't 
understand that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2010 1:29, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I meet 
> with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community organization.  He 
> often will tell stories after the meeting to those who are sticking 
> around about the dumb things people confess to.

That is why a confession is not enough to convict here. That has to be 
backed up with independent evidence. Sure that rule is sometimes not 
followed, but that can lead to later complications for the police or the 
judge. How often it gets uncaught I don't know for obvious reasons.

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2010 11:21, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4B6### [at] hotmailcom...
> 
>> I think I even know a Dutch case along this lines: a random guy in a
>> (probably flashy, if I know him well) car is followed by two under cover
>> policeman that think he might be a person that will drive to fast.
>> Indeed he does and after an hour they put him to the side of the road,
>> charge him with speeding and confiscate his car because he is driving
>> more than 50 kilometer per hour too fast.
>> The case comes for a judge and the guy defends himself saying: i have
>> seen these two guys already in that town 100km from the place where they
>> arrested me. I have seen them repeatedly and of course I was speeding,
>> two dodgy looking guys were following me all this time.
>> The guy gets cleared, gets his car back and the police gets new
>> instructions.
> 
> Can speed without repercussions so long as he has good grounds to belive
> that he is being followed?
> 

In this case it was easy to *prove* that he was being followed. And in 
this case it was also clear that he was speeding because of the actions 
of the police. So he has to be acquitted. It is, or is close to, what 
the Americans call entrapment.

If there is a *really* good reason for speeding, you may get away with 
it. E.g if your wife is in the process of giving birth and you get 
pulled over you get a stern lecture on why you should not do that and 
what to do instead, and a police escort to the next hospital.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> and a police escort to the next hospital.

And hopefully not a ticket for following the escort at a speed above the 
speed limit. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:36:32 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 28-1-2010 1:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I
>> meet with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community
>> organization.  He often will tell stories after the meeting to those
>> who are sticking around about the dumb things people confess to.
> 
> That is why a confession is not enough to convict here. That has to be
> backed up with independent evidence. Sure that rule is sometimes not
> followed, but that can lead to later complications for the police or the
> judge. How often it gets uncaught I don't know for obvious reasons.

That makes sense to me - and I think here in the US, if a defense 
attorney introduces reasonable doubt in spite of a confession, a 
conviction could be avoided, too.  For example, if a suspect confesses to 
something they didn't do, and the defense introduces a witness who gives 
undeniable evidence that the person couldn't have committed the crime, 
that would weigh pretty heavily for the jury.

And ISTR that a judge can overturn or set aside a jury's verdict if the 
judge determines that the jury convicted wrongly - though I don't think 
the judge can set aside a "not guilty" verdict.

Jim

Post a reply to this message