quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I've cogitated on this for a little bit and I grabbed my copy of the Constitution Of the United States of America.

I guess one of the reasons I liked this article was because it presents a complicated case. Unfortunately, to my way of thinking, it isn't that complictaed:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amendment V, U.S. Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"Compelled" is an interesting word, open to interpretation. Coerced? Threatened? Unfortunately, the government behaves this way, frequently. I know of quite a few cases where threats (made by the government so ... it's "okay") were issued to force people into "giving evidence against themselves". Let's face it. That's crap. It's a confession.





Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The 5th Circus held that there was no violation of Miranda because the plaintiff wasn't in custody. That's not correct, and I know this for a fact.

Once you are pulled over or detained in any way, you are in custody and thereby have a right to remain silent.

This will be overturned by the full circuit. If it is not reversed there and not reversed by the supremes, then we will have the beginning of a police state if we don't already.

quote:

ar·rest
verb: arrest; 3rd person present: arrests; past tense: arrested; past participle: arrested; gerund or present participle: arresting

1.
seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.