Wasn’t there a Supreme Court decision against this? A guy arrested because he wouldn’t provide ID? He was standing by his truck and smoking.
Have a cite on that? However, as you describe that they didn’t ask questions. They just asked for ID. If I am walking down the street, and match the description of psycho killer that just went on a rampage, the cops could legally detain me temporarily. Usually for about 48 hours under ordinary circumstances; the idea being to give the cops enough time to get an arrest warrant and formally charge me. Miranda rights only become relevant if the cops ask questions. It’s quite possible, and even likely, that if I do match the profile of a psycho killer that just went on a rampage, the cops will detain me and intentionally not ask questions. The reason being so as not to risk the case being bounced out of court on Miranda legal technicalities. Going on a killing spree is such an infamous charge the cops might rather leave making the case up to the guys in forensics who would use DNA evidence, etc. It’s all kinds of bad in terms of PR for cops if murder suspect walks because of their failure to follow legal technicalities.
Where the cops are most likely to use high pressure interrogation techniques is for lesser charges. If they get the person to blab when they shouldn’t, and this makes their case, fantastic. If the case gets tossed out of court on technicalities, and it is just a marijuana trafficking case, there will be little public outrage.
BTW, twice I have had detectives show up at my door wanting to ask me questions about a crime. Once shockingly was about an unsuccessful murder attempt on a homeless streetwalker I knew personally. Even though I didn’t even remotely match the description of her attacker. She told me herself what he looked like, and didn’t remotely resemble me. (Not to mention, as she knew me personally if I had tried to kill her why would she conceal this?) All I can figure is that the detectives thought it was some conspiracy, and I was involved. I of course quoted my Fifth Amendment rights, and refused to talk to them. (I had no clue who may have attacked her.) After that they left me alone. I was seriously worried when a year later I read in the papers she had been murdered. Turns out that the cops in that case quickly found the true killer. He copped one hell of a plea bargain, got a short sentence, and long ago must have been released. 
The other case involved a drug OD death years ago of some fool who ignored my warnings, and ended up dead. Apparently some out of state cops found out I had warned him, and thought I might have more detailed knowledge about his death that could incriminate someone else. They managed to convince the local police dicks to lean on me. My response was “Based on the advice of legal counsel, I choose to make no comment on this matter. Do you gentlemen have a warrant for my arrest?” Response: “Umm…no.” “Do you possess a valid search warrant signed by a judge?” Response: “Umm…no.” “In that case, I bid you gentlemen a fond goodbye.” (Me slamming the door in their face.)
Long ago, I had a lawyer whack me with a verbal cluestick saying to the effect “NEVER talk to cops if they think you are a suspect.” I got the hint. 
I pity the fool who ignores such advice.
You know, I’ve heard this advice over and over and over…and yet I still can’t help feeling that if you are absolutely innocent (as in, wrong guy, not ‘you can’t prove it’ innocent) AND you are able to offer a good alibi, why shouldn’t you?
“No, officer, I did not rob the First National Bank at eleven a.m. today. I was at my niece’s birthday party from ten a.m until well after noon. Here’s my sister’s name and phone number, and she can give you the names of seven other adults who were there as well.”
Wouldn’t it be better in a situation like that to give the police the info and get them off your back instead of getting held in a cell and waiting for your lawyer and running up a legal bill and all?
What harm can come from cooperating, in a situation like that?
Nothing at all.
But if you really didn’t do it and they start claiming they have “fingerprints and other forensic evidence” against you, shut up and get a lawyer.
This happened to my son a few years ago and I still feel shame that my first kneejerk reaction was to believe the police and assume that my son must be lying.
:mad:
NEVER believe the police. Really good defense lawyers have told me that. Why should I argue?
The military is a totally different story. You do not have the same rights as a civilian.
Haj
:eek:
Why the suprise? When you join the military you sign away a significant amount of your rights. I don’t want to get in too far over my head but my good friend is an Air Force JAG and he has told me a few things. For example, if you have been seeing a military psychologist, you do not have patient-doctor confidentiality. Investigators can look at the doctor’s notes. When my friend was acting as a defense lawyer, he would advise to stop seeing the shrink because what he might say could and would be used against him. You don’t have Miranda rights either.
Haj
Since I am a bored Jew on xmas eve, I found a cite:
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_us_constitution.htm
According to the cite, I was wrong about Miranda but you do have fewer rights in general.
Haj
What was that about? You can’t have a functioning military with the same civil rights as civies, unless a particular country hapens to have very few such rights at all. Armies may need to order soldiers to work at a particular job whether that person likes it or not, they may need to order people to live in a place they specify. Military law actually provides solid defense for the accused, but it’s also based around field operations.
Sorry, I was being facetious. I was in the Army for a long time and I know all about how my rights were different. They make a point of reminding you how your rights are different.
Part of my original point was that you don’t always (like in the military for instance) have a right to a lawyer when you’re being interrogated.
Oops. My bad. I didn’t realize that you were the person to whom I replied in the first post.
As you were, soldier.
Haj
Actually, that is why the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] is prominently posted in IIRC every building somewhere [I have yet to be in a building on the sub base in Groton CT that didnt have one posted, and we have been here 15 years=)]
It tells you Everything!
I General Provisions
II Apprehension and Restraint
III Non-Judicial Punishment
IV Court-Martial Jurisdiction
V Composition of Courts-Martial
VI Pre-Trial Procedure
VII Trial Procedure
VIII Sentences
IX Post-Trial Procedure and Review of Courts Martial
X Punitive Articles
XI Miscellaneous Provisions
*XII Court of Military Appeals
And believe me, they cover all sorts of things in boot camp as well, per mrAru.
Oddly enough, the only contact I have had with my local JAG office is getting my will and living will vetted by and processed by one of the lawyers. [paralegal, I wrote my own up and just needed it made official] mrAru used it regularly to give me his powers-of-attorney. Oddly enough, in reading one of them I could have re-enlisted him with out asking him first, sold the house, took all of his money and divorced myself too :smack: that god for true love … if i was a gold digger he could have been screwed :eek:
Yes.
The case was Hiibel v. Judicial Court of Nevada.
Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. If you’re merely approached on the street, this doesn’t apply; you must be detained. But in that case, yes, an officer may require you to provide your name.
Thanks.
Wasn’t he detained because he wouldn’t identify himself? Doesn’t sound much different than the secret police demanding your papers.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/hiivsix.html
No. He was detained because an officer was told that Hiibel, the driver of a pickup truck, was physically fighting with his passenger, a female, and the truck was pulled off on the side of the road with visible skid marks. This gave rise to the reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
According to the policeman.
Thanks again.
Well, the determination of whether reasonable, articulable suspicion exists under those facts is a question of law… so, no, it’s according to the Supreme Court.
According to whether or not I can tell the cop to go away and finish my smoke without being “detailed”, it’s up to the cop.