Being Silent is Guilty

[EMNofSeattle]

Also, around that time, a suspect could absolve himself by taking the oath of purgation. Basically, a person swore he did not commit the offense, and that was the end of it.

If you watch "the first 48" you'll see alot of criminals who seem to forget the oath of purgation no longer applies......

 

[countryclubjoe]

Yes. You can simply exercise your right to remain silent. However, this does not clearly establish whether the encounter is consensual. There are reams and reams of court opinions sorting out whether an encounter was consensual--all because the citizen didn't expressly say so one way or the other.

Expressly refusing consent to the encounter removes all doubt and puts the cop on notice that he must have RAS or another warrant clause exception is he wants to continue the encounter.

Another problem a citizen may encounter is the LEO term" Obstruction of Justice". Yea, right.

Are we really "obstructing" anything by remaining silent? I don't think so.

My .02

CCJ

 

[Citizen]

Another problem a citizen may encounter is the LEO term" Obstruction of Justice". Yea, right.

Are we really "obstructing" anything by remaining silent? I don't think so.

My .02

CCJ

Agreed.

The one area that might be a little dangerous to remain silent is verbal identity. Depending on state or local laws, one might be compelled to identify himself verbally to a cop who has reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. If a state doesn't have a statute with its own penalty, the state's case law may lump identity refusal into the catch-all "obstruction" category. Its been a long time since it was discussed here, so I'm having trouble remembering more.

Remaining silent/being compelled to identify was the crux of Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court. Hiibel lost. In so many words, the US Supreme Court said that law compelling you to identify yourself did not violate the the right against self-incrimination. As an interesting side note, Hiibel is the first SCOTUS case where you can see the actual police encounter on YouTube. The cop's dash cam is posted; just search Larry Hiibel.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Another problem a citizen may encounter is the LEO term" Obstruction of Justice". Yea, right.

Are we really "obstructing" anything by remaining silent? I don't think so.

My .02

CCJ

Yep utter non crimes when they stand alone yet often used to compel others by threat of force to give up rights.

Agreed.

The one area that might be a little dangerous to remain silent is verbal identity. Depending on state or local laws, one might be compelled to identify himself verbally to a cop who has reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. If a state doesn't have a statute with its own penalty, the state's case law may lump identity refusal into the catch-all "obstruction" category. Its been a long time since it was discussed here, so I'm having trouble remembering more.

Remaining silent/being compelled to identify was the crux of Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court. Hiibel lost. In so many words, the US Supreme Court said that law compelling you to identify yourself did not violate the the right against self-incrimination. As an interesting side note, Hiibel is the first SCOTUS case where you can see the actual police encounter on YouTube. The cop's dash cam is posted; just search Larry Hiibel.

Even admit in the decision that it can be violating if the surrendering of ID would incriminate you. Yet they are perfectly fine with someone surrendering rights under duress.

 

[DocWalker]

I wonder what "prince" would have done if questioned by LEO's when he used a symbol for his name?

This would suck if you had laryngitis or couldn't speak for some reason.....

(This is sarcasm)

 

[Citizen]

Yep utter non crimes when they stand alone yet often used to compel others by threat of force to give up rights.



Even admit in the decision [Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court ] that it can be violating if the surrendering of ID would incriminate you. Yet they are perfectly fine with someone surrendering rights under duress.

Just to enhance understanding for unfamiliar readers.

At the very end of Hiibel, the court admits that being compelled to identify oneself might furnish a link in the chain of evidence that can be used against the person. But, they said they would address it if it ever comes up.

Well, surprise, surprise. It has come up. An OCer in CA a few years ago was stopped by police and had his wallet seized. His identity was ascertained from wallet contents. The cops let him go because they couldn't charge him.

But, later when the prosecutor got involved he reinterpreted the statute about carrying in a public place, and had him arrested. Ultimately the prosecutor persuaded the judge to change the legal meaning of the word public, and the OCer was convicted. He lost his appeal, too.

Because the police had seized his identity from his wallet, the prosecutor knew who to go after and where to find him. If his identity had not been established during the initial stop, the prosecutor would have had no target.

 

[eye95]

Just to enhance understanding for unfamiliar readers.

At the very end of Hiibel, the court admits that being compelled to identify oneself might furnish a link in the chain of evidence that can be used against the person. But, they said they would address it if it ever comes up.

Well, surprise, surprise. It has come up. An OCer in CA a few years ago was stopped by police and had his wallet seized. His identity was ascertained from wallet contents. The cops let him go because they couldn't charge him.

But, later when the prosecutor got involved he reinterpreted the statute about carrying in a public place, and had him arrested. Ultimately the prosecutor persuaded the judge to change the legal meaning of the word public, and the OCer was convicted. He lost his appeal, too.

Because the police had seized his identity from his wallet, the prosecutor knew who to go after and where to find him. If his identity had not been established during the initial stop, the prosecutor would have had no target.

What case is this? Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

What case is this? Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

He was a poster here named, theseis...
He got nabbed in a laundromat in california,
the cops didnt know he had violated any law for many days ,
untill later, they found that he was within the 1000 ft gfsz,
so then with the ILLEGALY found ID of address and name,
they came, got him, and drug him through the system,,, twice!!!
He has moved to,,, Hong kong!!!!

 

[eye95]

He was a poster here named, theseis...
He got nabbed in a laundromat in california,
the cops didnt know he had violated any law for many days ,
untill later, they found that he was within the 1000 ft gfsz,
so then with the ILLEGALY found ID of address and name,
they came, got him, and drug him through the system,,, twice!!!
He has moved to,,, Hong kong!!!!

I would like to read the case. Who v. Who? Thanks again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I would like to read the case. Who v. Who? Thanks again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?32913-Theseus

that's the member, click on his "started threads" link, he has at least 3 or 4 threads about his being cited under Cali GFSZA law....

 

[eye95]

Link not working. Anyway, I really want to read the actual cases, what happened in court. Does he cite the cases, or just relate his story?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Link not working. Anyway, I really want to read the actual cases, what happened in court. Does he cite the cases, or just relate his story?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

link works for me....

if you choose not to believe the story or not to look into it it's your call.

 

[eye95]

link works for me....

if you choose not to believe the story or not to look into it it's your call.

Please don't assume that I do not believe the story. That is somewhat insulting. I just like to know exactly how the legal wrangling came out in order to assess the impact on OC as a whole and on me individually. Very often the legal conclusions reached on a message board do not match the realities of the case--even if the moral conclusions are quite correct.

Can anyone cite a case? Thanks in advance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Just to enhance understanding for unfamiliar readers.

At the very end of Hiibel, the court admits that being compelled to identify oneself might furnish a link in the chain of evidence that can be used against the person. But, they said they would address it if it ever comes up.

Well, surprise, surprise. It has come up. An OCer in CA a few years ago was stopped by police and had his wallet seized. His identity was ascertained from wallet contents. The cops let him go because they couldn't charge him.

But, later when the prosecutor got involved he reinterpreted the statute about carrying in a public place, and had him arrested. Ultimately the prosecutor persuaded the judge to change the legal meaning of the word public, and the OCer was convicted. He lost his appeal, too.

Because the police had seized his identity from his wallet, the prosecutor knew who to go after and where to find him. If his identity had not been established during the initial stop, the prosecutor would have had no target.

+1 And thanks for the reminder.

I had something that exactly like what the SCOTUS mentioned happen to me.