|
|
Post by Brian on Feb 11, 2006 0:23:24 GMT -5
???My fiance was pulled over and then taken to the cooler w/out her rights being read to her. Is that legal or is there a loophole that the popo use to say that it was unneeded?
|
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 11, 2006 18:15:50 GMT -5
???My fiance was pulled over and then taken to the cooler w/out her rights being read to her. Is that legal or is there a loophole that the popo use to say that it was unneeded? Cops don't always have to read "rights" to people, specially if their being arrested for such things as public intoxication or disorderly conduct. The police officer does not have to read anybody their "rights" unless that officer wants to get a statement or confession from a suspect. If the officer does not want to record what you have to say and use it against you, he does not have to read you your rights. So it's always best never to talk to a police officer! All they have to do is lie and say, yes I did read the suspect his/her rights and they started talking. All cops are liars, never forget this! Know your Rights! flyservers.com/members5/policecrime.com/police.html |
|
|
|
Post by streetsweeper on Aug 22, 2006 22:10:09 GMT -5
We only have to read you the Miranda rights if you are the suspect of a crime (so asking "What's going on?" doesn't need Miranda), have been arrested, and the officer wishes to question you further. If I pulled your wife over for weaving, and I ask her "How much as she had to drink?" I don't need Miranda. If I go through field sobriety, determine she is DUI and place her under arrest for same, and then ask her how much she has had to drink, I would need to read her Miranda first.
|
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Aug 24, 2006 17:04:26 GMT -5
We only have to read you the Miranda rights if you are the suspect of a crime (so asking "What's going on?" doesn't need Miranda), have been arrested, and the officer wishes to question you further. If I pulled your wife over for weaving, and I ask her "How much as she had to drink?" I don't need Miranda. If I go through field sobriety, determine she is DUI and place her under arrest for same, and then ask her how much she has had to drink, I would need to read her Miranda first. You have the constitutional right NEVER to SAY ANYTHING to a police officer. You never have to answer questions or have a casual conversation with a cop. If a police officer pulls you over and says, the reason I pulled you over is that you were doing 75mph in a 65 zone. Now anything a cop ask you, other than in regards to you speeding has nothing to do with the traffic stop. The officer is trying to engage you in "small talk" with him. Don't do it! Say nothing, except that you don't have time to talk, because you are late for an appointment. If he ask you where you appointment is, simply say sir what does this have to do with me speeding? "Next time you see a cop, look at all the shit on his nose. It's from him sticking where it don't belong." Below are other examples of what police officer will say to try to get you talking and remember by law, you have every right not to answer any question the police officer may ask you. 1. Where are you coming from or going today? DON'T ANSWER! It's none of the cops fucking business. It has nothing to do with the traffic stop. 2. Have you been drinking? DON'T ANSWER! The constitution says you don't have to tell the cop anything. Keep your mouth shut! Never incriminate yourself. 3. You don't mind if I search your car? Simply say, sir I am real late for an appointment, I don't have time today, so I'm going to say NO to your request. 4. I'm going to have to ask you to take a Breathalyzer and walk this white line. SAY NO, I REFUSE! Under the constitution, you don't have to take any test that an officer request. If you do, you are incriminating yourself. Keep in mind if you refuse to take the test, you could loose your license for 6-12 months depending on your state laws. |
|
|
|
Post by streetsweeper on Aug 24, 2006 21:05:57 GMT -5
First off, Watcher, you need to understand something about cops: It's our job to get into people's business. Unforntunately, the bad guys don't wear signs anymore, so we have to kind of snoop around and find them. Do I do this with every law-abiding citizen I meet? No, it would take too much time. So I narrow my search and start with people that break traffic laws and go from there. If you can think of a better way for me to do my job, we're hiring. [ 4. I'm going to have to ask you to take a Breathalyzer and walk this white line. SAY NO, I REFUSE! Under the constitution, you don't have to take any test that an officer request. If you do, you are incriminating yourself. Keep in mind if you refuse to take the test, you could loose your license for 6-12 months depending on your state laws. In many states, including mine, you give consent to a state administered chemical test of your blood, breath, or urine when you recieve and use your license to drive. Failure to submit such a test can not only be used against you in court, but it can be an automatic suspension of your license for a minimun period of one year- regardless of whether or not you are found guilty or not. You know my background in criminal law. Can't say the same for Watcher. |
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Aug 24, 2006 23:12:14 GMT -5
First off, Watcher, you need to understand something about cops: It's our job to get into people's business. Unforntunately, the bad guys don't wear signs anymore, so we have to kind of snoop around and find them. Do I do this with every law-abiding citizen I meet? No, it would take too much time. So I narrow my search and start with people that break traffic laws and go from there. If you can think of a better way for me to do my job, we're hiring. Unfortunately the "good cops" don't wear signs either.[ 4. I'm going to have to ask you to take a Breathalyzer and walk this white line. SAY NO, I REFUSE! Under the constitution, you don't have to take any test that an officer request. If you do, you are incriminating yourself. Keep in mind if you refuse to take the test, you could loose your license for 6-12 months depending on your state laws. In many states, including mine, you give consent to a state administered chemical test of your blood, breath, or urine when you recieve and use your license to drive. Failure to submit such a test can not only be used against you in court, but it can be an automatic suspension of your license for a minimun period of one year- regardless of whether or not you are found guilty or not. You know my background in criminal law. Can't say the same for Watcher. Your last statement, isn't it the same damn thing I implied? You have a state law and then you have the constitution that is over state laws. Your state law might say that you are required to take a test, but the constitution says you don't have to "incriminate" yourself. If you choose not to incriminate yourself, the state will punish you by taking away your so called "driving privileges." |
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Aug 25, 2006 1:58:11 GMT -5
There is the constitution of the United States and then there is the bill of rights.
Amendment 10 of the bill of rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The State has authority. Each State has loaned, assigned or delegated a small percentage of State authority over to the federal Government. For arguments sake let’s say it’s 10% Using this math the State still retains 90% of the authority within that State. It would seem that the federal Government would be in a straight jacket with limited powers. The owned slave has now risen up and is giving dictatorship orders down to the slave masters.
The people have loaned, assigned or delegated a small percentage of authority over to the State. Again, the owned slave has now risen up and is giving dictatorship orders down to the slave masters. The State Government should be in a straight jacket with limited powers.
WaTcHeR your argument is that the Feds can over ride the States. On one hand you are right but on the other hand you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by KC on Aug 26, 2006 22:14:16 GMT -5
In order to pull you over for DUI, an officer must have a reasonable articularly suspicion to do so. The most common articularly suspicion is speeding. Next comes failure to maintain lane (weaving). Other reasons include not using your turn signal while changing lanes, having a cracked windshield, improper tag, driving while black and the list goes on.
Never answer any questions such as where you've been, how much alcohol you've consumed, etc. Never perform any roadside tests. Never blow into any handheld device on the side of the road. All the officer is doing is looking for any evidence he might can use against you in court. Don't give any! Do not let an officer's actions or words intimidate you into doing something you have no legal obligation to do.
Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "No person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), established that the privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from informal compulsion by law-enforcement during "in custody" questioning or from legal compulsion. Miranda protects against compelled testimonial or communicative evidence, but does not reach "real or physical evidence."
DWI Facts:
A breath test or field sobriety test does not automatically prove you guilty. According to the federal government, accuracy of field sobriety tests are as follows:
HGN test..................77%
Walk and turn...........68%
One leg stand...........65%
Lie detector test are only 60-75% accurate, why do you think there not admissible in court?
The best thing to do is to refuse any test a police officer ask you to take, until you have a lawyer present to represent you. Another words say you would be more than happy to take the test, but you want your lawyer present. "Most states will not allow you to have a lawyer present, until after you are arrested and taken to jail." At least when it comes time for your to be in court, your lawyer will be able to say that you didn't completely refuse the test, you were just asking for an attorney to advice you of your rights. The officer might say something like, well your not under arrest so why do you want a lawyer? Well if your not under arrest, you should be able to ask the police officer if you are "free to leave." The police officer might say your not free to leave because he is doing an "investigation." Well that investigation happens to be on you!
An investigation might consist of the officer asking you questions and expecting answers from you, or asking you to take "voluntary" test. Again instruct the officer that you don't mind answering any question or taking any test, just as long as you have your attorney present. There is still no law that says you have to answer any question or take a test that police officer may ask. If the police officer decides to arrest you for not answering questions or taking a test, then that is when your lawyer will have a much better chance of helping you out in court.
If the police don't have evidence of any wrong doing, other than you exercising your constitutional rights, then the officer won't have much of a case to go on. A lawyer can go a long way in helping you, when you don't say anything to the police or take their test.
By your sobriety field test refusal, you jeopardize no rights and prevent the authorities from obtaining evidence which they can use against you.
Each state is a little different on what can happen to you when you refuse to take a field sobriety test. The best thing to do is a Google search for "right not to take field sobriety test and the state you live in".
Below are some rulings in a few states:
The California Court of Appeals dealt with a similar issue in Whalen v. Municipal Court, 274 Cal. App. 2d 809 (Cal. App. Ct. 1969). In Whalen, the court held that evidence secured as a result of field sobriety tests is not within the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination because it is not communicative or testimonial in nature.
In Stowell v. Dep't. of Transp., 514 A.2d 438 (DC App. Ct. 1986), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found that Miranda privilege against self-incrimination was not implicated when the defendant refused to submit to alcohol tests. The same court came to a different conclusion on a similar issue in Stuart v. District of Columbia, 157 A.2d 294 (DC App. Ct. 1960). In this case, the court found that evidence of refusal to submit to testing was inadmissable because the assertion of the right to refuse cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals held that the recitation of the alphabet and counting backwards as field sobriety tests are not testimonial in nature for purposes of the right against self-incrimination. See Gassaway v. Texas, 957 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
In People v. Miller, 447 N.E.2d 1060 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983), the Illinois Appellate Court held that the results of field sobriety tests, or fact of refusal to perform the tests, are admissible. The court also held that failure to warn of admissibility only goes to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility. The same court held that admission of refusal to take a blood alcohol test does not violate the Fifth Amendment in People v. Bugbee, 559 N.E.2d 554 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). This court also held that recitation tests are not testimonial since they do not reveal subjective knowledge or thought processes.
The Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that a field sobriety test request does not constitute a custodial interrogation. See Commonwealth v. Cameron, 689 N.E.2d 1365 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). The court also found that a police officer is not required to give Miranda warnings prior to field sobriety tests. The court held that the tests are not testimonial or communicative in nature, and are thus not within the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination.
|
|
