It's the right to not incriminate oneself.
And that would be the right to not answer questions, the right to not say anything at all. Right?
That doesn't mean that the government can't ask questions or detain anyone who are suspected of criminal actions or wrongdoing.
Funny. That's precisely what I wrote in the above.
So why did you neg rep me with the following missive, nitwit?
Hi, you have received -918 reputation points from TheGreatGatsby.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Learn what the 5th amendment is.
Cite in my post in the above where I said anything to the contrary.
This is a pretty important matter. It's only the stuff of inalienable rights.
Do you have any integrity? Are you going to admit your error on this board as openly as you made it?
In all likelihood, you merely read Jones' and Contamacious' baby talk, but failed to read my rebuttal.
The OP doesn't know the law?!
A police officer may ask all the questions he wants, which is precisely what I wrote in the above, and obviously he may detain one for the length of time it takes to ask one those questions . . . albeit, lawfully, only up to a point, and in most cases that point is contingent upon what one willingly permits it to be. Beyond that point he must not only have probable cause, a reasonable suspicion that one has committed a crime, he must state what that probable cause is . . . or let one go.
That's why only fools answer questions in police encounters, as every question the fool answers only prolongs that encounter (Got me a fish!): answers will only serve to provide further substance for probable cause; answers can only serve to incriminate the fool.
There is no such thing as a harmless question in such encounters.
"Where are you coming from?"
"From the Circle-K down the street back that way a bit."
"Ah! That’s the Circle-K where a robbery was just committed. I need to see your ID. What’s you name? Where do you live? Better yet, turn around and put your hands behind your back."
WRONG!
"Where are you coming from?"
"I don’t answer questions. Am I being detained or am I free to go?"
RIGHT!
A police officer is not your lord and master. He's a public servant accountable to you. He has no more reasonable expectation of privacy in public than you do. He’s not above the law anymore than you are. He’s not duly appointed with the authority to enforce the law until after he has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Notwithstanding, he can lawfully use deceit to trip you up, that he might induce you to divulge information that might incriminate you.
Hence, a police officer is not your brother or your friend or your lawyer or your pastor. His job in an investigation of you is to uncover incriminating information about you.
You don't answer questions in a police encounter unless it’s manifestly clear that you cannot possibly be the target of an investigation, and even then, in most cases, sans an immediate crisis, you should not do so without your lawyer present, just in case.
You ask the questions!
You ask the questions that are pertinent to your rights, and the police officer is bound by the law to answer them.
"Am I being detained or am I free to go?"
"On what grounds am I being detained?"
"What’s your name and badge number?"
Also:
"I don’t answer questions."
"I don’t willingly consent to any searches or seizures of my person or my property."
"I don’t willingly consent to provide any information or documents regarding my identity."
Check?
Don't answer questions. Never willingly divulge anything about yourself or your identity. You will lose every time. You don't have to willingly give such information within the territorial boundaries of the United States. It's the police officer's job to get information, and he gets paid whether you give it to him or not. If threatened with arrest, hold your ground. Most times it’s a bluff, a form of investigatory deception, to get information. Don't be a *****.
If the cop isn't bluffing, for example, if there actually were a robbery at the Circle-K, the fool gave the cop information that could be used in a court of law to link him to a crime he may not have committed.
And once again, for those of you among us who confound the legal subtleties and blunt realities of police encounters due to the fact that you are by nature panty-pissing bootlicks or knee-jerk conformists in the face of officialdom, any information you give to a police officer, before or after you’ve been arrested and Mirandized, can be used against you.
If arrested, continue to remain silent and make the police officer take your ID, and if you don't have an ID on your person, ask the officer if he may lawfully command you to divulge your identity.
(While a police officer may use deception in his investigation of you, he may not lawfully lie to you in response to any specific questions that directly pertain to your rights. Also, stops entailing traffic violations, if and when the officer emphatically specifies the traffic law you allegedly violated, you must give him your driver license if commanded to do so.)
Aside from minor traffic violations, in most states, and upon arrest only, one is required to identify oneself at that time, typically, with name and address (See post below for further detailed clarification in
Terry stops; there's a subtle wrinkle that requires us all to know local law.). But give no further information and never lie. If you have an ID, the officer will ask you to confirm that you are in fact the person so identified and if the information is current. A simple
yes is your answer and nothing more.
In case law, while refusing to identify yourself upon arrest is not a crime, lying about your identity is, namely, actively or consciously impeding a lawful investigation.
I know the law. I am an open-carry citizen. Hence, it is imperative for me to know the law. I have been stopped a few times and, without exception, have walked away within minutes without giving even so much as my name. There are lots of stupid cops out there. Just search YouTube under "open-carry stops," for example. The smart ones readily recognize when they’re up against someone who knows his rights and will not bend, and they are smart enough to know it is highly unlikely that such a person is a criminal or up to no good.
Caveat: some states require you to identify yourself in open-carry stops, sans probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. I don't approve of such laws, and, in my opinion, they should be resisted. I don't live in one of those states.
Also, there are conceivably other situations wherein the above may not hold concerning a command to identity oneself or provide ID, DUI checkpoints, for example, which I deplore for the same reason I deplore any other kind of suspicionsless or warrantless stops within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has ruled, wrongfully, that checkpoints, DUI and immigration, are lawful as long as they are plainly marked ahead on the road, though one is not required to cooperate beyond stopping one's vehicle.
Which brings us to the abominations of no-refusal-blood-test or breathalyzer laws, or New York City's random stop-and-frisk policy, examples of states and municipalities disregarding established case law or trying to shove exceptions between the fine lines of the law against the spirit of the law, the inevitable creep of tyranny as a result of the Supreme Court allowing checkpoints and the like in the first place. In all likelihood, these abominations will be struck down if and when they reach the Court. In the meantime, they must be resisted. The Second District Court of Appeals did strike down New York City's stop-and-frisk, but it's still going on. (Caveat: recent case law does allow one to be briefly frisked for a weapon, typically in pedestrian
Terry stops, if and only if there exists "a reasonable suspicion" that one is armed. See the problem? New York City has taken this inch all the way to China. The reasonable suspicion standard is essentially undefinable relative to the higher standard of probable cause. A cop putting his hands on you at a lower standard is pretty damn aggressive if you ask me.)
This is mostly the stuff of the political left, yet we conservatives/libertarians are supposedly the fascists.
Note the political persuasion of those misrepresenting or failing to understand the matter on this thread. Leftists. Progressives. Marxists. Statist.
