I’m pretty sure that a fancy dress party requires one to wear their underwear under their clothes.
Officers, arrest @glee!!!
In a LOT of these sorts of statutes there’s a presumption that the police and prosecution will behave “sensibly”, not use the law a bludgeon on the populace.
We in this country may be about to learn how dangerous it is to have such potentially unjust laws on our books, protected as we are from their unjust enforcement only by a (mostly) “just” system.
This is going a little far for FQ.
Quite right. That’s twice for me in recent weeks. Past time for me to pay careful attention to the forum, not just the thread. There won’t be a third.
…
The police in one small CA burg were doing a “backwards strike” by doing as many arrests as possible. I was going 50 down PCH, but they had charged the limit to 35. They arrested me for reckless driving, and when they took off my watch they noticed it had a scratch which ran thru the serial number. They then arrested me for “possessing a item with a marked or altered serial number”. The ADA who I talked to was sure that I had been arrested for “possessing stolen property” and that “possessing a item with a marked or altered serial number” wasn’t a real thing. He checked and came back. During the hearing the Judge tossed it out, then told the ADA “I want to talk to you during recess” with a stern look. The judge didn’t even ask for any testimony, just my plea of “Not Guilty”. This was when I was young, so I had no lawyer, etc.
The traffic Court Judge, also dismissed my case without me saying anything other than “Not Guilty, you Honor”. He talked rather sharply to the cop, asking him if he really thought 50MPH on PCH at 3AM was dangerous. The cop had no answer.
I heard the Chief left soon afterwards.
So yeah, the Police can get stupid, but it us rare the courts will oblige them.
It’s different in the UK.
At that time, when you bought a car, you would expect some paperwork with all the details of the car, known as a V5(c). Part of this was sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and they would then send you a new document. In fact none of this “proves” who actually owns the car.
Dodgy sellers will say that the V5(c) was lost and there is a procedure to get a replacement, My driver did this and that’s what sent the cops to his address.
These days, it’s all done online, but “dodgy” sellers still use the old tricks to sell stolen cars to mugs. It’s not hard to establish ownership, to ensure that there is no outstanding debt, and that the car has not been in a serious collision.
How are stolen cars sold in the USA?
Nice try G-Man but it won’t work.
I’m sure dodgy sellers in the US do the same thing with the title - the seller could have lost the title and there is a procedure to get a replacement. But I would never turn over the money until the seller had a title to sign over to me, and it appears that DVLA recommends not buying a vehicle that doesn’t have the registration certificate.
There are other ways to sell stolen vehicles - let’s just say not everyone cares about registering a vehicle and there are sometimes exemptions to the title requirement for cars over a certain age/ worth less than a specified amount of money being transferred to salvage yards.
If there isn’t something that’s the equivalent of a title that’s used to transfer and prove ownership, how do you prove ownership? Does the DVLA keep records so I can look up who the current owner is or is there some other method?
In pieces, or over seas.
I first heard this on the car radio in New Zealand and almost drove off the road, I was laughing so hard at the goat reference. (It takes to 4;15 or so to get to the underwear reference… “I’m pretty sure McDonalds has an ‘underwear go inside the pants’ policy”)
Lazy Boy - Underwear Goes Inside The Pants
Meanwhile, back at the OP:
I presume the prosecution can say that the obvious inference in a situation is that the person had to know the goods were stolen - but cannot explicitly say the defendant declined to explain? Or does it bump up against the rule you have to specifically invoke our fifth amendment, and if so - “when the defendant was asked, they invoked the fifth amendment” is a prejudicial statement?
A prosecutor cannot argue to the jury that the defendant’s silence implies guilt.
If you are the defendant and choose to testify then you have waived your right to the 5th and have to answer all questions. Taking the 5th is either you get on the stand or you don’t.
But, if you are a witness and called to testify, you can selectively claim the 5th on any given question. CITE
You have to explicitly invoke your right to silence if the police are questioning you. Just remaining silent, saying nothing, is sufficient to imply guilt. (See: Salinas v. Texas)
From that case:
According to the Court, the prosecution can comment on the silence of a suspect who:
- is out of police custody (and not Mirandized)
- voluntarily submits to police questioning, and
- stays silent without expressly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. SOURCE
Apparently you have a right to remain silent but you have to say you want to remain silent. Indeed, I would think the better route than invoking your 5th amendment rights in the situation above would be to ask the police if you are under arrest. If not, are you free to go? If they say you are not under arrest and you are free to go then…go. Leave on the spot. If they stop you then the calculus changes.
We see in testimony before congress and (maybe?) depositions where every time the person is asked a question they say they are invoking their right to remain silent under the 5th amendment (or something to that effect). They say that to each and every question asked. I assume their lawyers told them to do that for some reason (I do not know what that reason is…because they have to or because they want to be obnoxious or something else).
IANAL…this is my understanding of the current legal landscape. I very well might be wrong.
Yes, all you have to do is enter the reg No into the DVLA database and you can get the history. You can see the registered keepers and the record of all the annual checks (MOTs) since the car was three years old.
There are also websites that will do these checks and more, but for a fee.
This. The last time I bought a used car was 25 years ago, and that was from my parents. And yes, they had the title. If I end up ever buying a used car from a stranger in the future, I can’t imagine I’d go through with the sale unless all the seller’s paperwork was in order.
Wait, I thought the registered keeper was not necessarily the owner so that wouldn’t tell me whether the person who wants to sell me a car is really the owner. Or did I misunderstand?
The usual reason why the RK may not be the owner is that the owner is a company - either the RK’s employer or, more often, a leasing company.
In any case, the RK will always have a clear link back to the owner, but the official advice is: “if you are buying a car you should make sure you get the same document and store it in a safe place. You should also ask the seller if they have the invoice from when they bought the car as well to make sure that they legally own it. You are within your rights to reject the V5C as proof of ownership.”
Many people fail to follow that advice. Although one would normally expect a sheaf of documents, including the original receipt, when you buy any car.
Where I live, the local flea markets, including wildcat markets in local parks, sell a lot of stolen goods. Mostly whatever the local tweakers dug out of someone’s trunk, or stolen bikes. So it’s flea-market junk and bike parts, but still stolen. I’ve had friends tell me how they bought back their stuff from street vendors the day after their car was broken into.
The big flea market also has a lot of above-board vendors selling new clothes at a discount.
Now I’m remembering an old Sir Mix-A-Lot song called “Swap Meet Louie” about selling fake Louis Vuitton gear to folks who can’t afford to shop at Saks.
My understanding too… Succinctly.
But I assume the prosecutor can say something like “we have no reason why the defendant thought this was legitimate” but cannot explicitly say “the defendant has refused/failed to explain”? I assume this is treading mighty close to implying the fifth means guilt.
The congressional investigation gets away with it because it’s not a criminal trial. So, like a civil trial, the witness cannot avoid testifying (see “Steve Bannon”) but then they can invoke the fifth and then we can all make of it what we want. Should some of these witnesses proceed to a criminal trial, then any suggestion that as a defendant they’ve pled the fifth is not allowed to be mentioned in the trial?
Also, were the Department of Justice doing a thorough job, I presume it could charge witnesses with contempt of congress who plead the fifth for basic questions that do not have an odor of incrimination.
One nice thing about cases in common-law jurisdictions is that they build off precedent, with citations.
Click to peel back the curtain...
The case I cited above cited a case, which itself cited a case, which itself cited a case, which itself cited State v. McAsllister, 53 Ohio App. 2d 176 (1977):
During its general charge to the jury the court gave the following instruction:
"There was some evidence in this case from which the jury might infer that there was some recently stolen property in the possession of the defendant. Whether or not you so find is entirely up to the jury.
“The law on that is that such, if you so find, possession of stolen property which was recently stolen and in the possession of a person, it tends to establish guilt and is sufficient, itself, for conviction unless it is overcome by other facts and circumstances in evidence so as to raise in the minds of the jury reasonable doubt.”
Appellant objected to this instruction, and claims that the court committed reversible error in giving it. He also claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. We disagree.
It has long been established in Ohio that the unexplained possession by a defendant of recently stolen property may give rise to a permissive inference from which a jury may conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of the theft. Methard v. State (1869), 19 Ohio St. 363; State v. Brennan (1949), 85 Ohio App. 175; Cofield v. State (1933), 14 Ohio Law Abs. 29. Cf. State v. Arthur (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 67. Substantially similar inferences have long been a part of our legal heritage. See, Barnes v. United States (1973), 412 U.S. 837. It is our conclusion that this inference, and the instruction thereon, comport with due process.
The trial court instructed the jury in this case that if they found that the appellant was in possession of recently stolen property ( i. e., the automobile), that would be a sufficient basis for conviction if not overcome by other facts and circumstances. The court did not tell the jury that they must convict if they found that appellant was in possession of recently stolen property, which would have been error. Methard v. State, supra. Thus, the inference was permissive in nature.
Furthermore, we conclude that this permissive inference is sufficient to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard. That is, we believe that a rational jury could, in fact, properly conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in possession of recently stolen property who offers no explanation of such possession, is guilty of the theft. Accordingly, an instruction on the inference is not error. The fact that the practical effect of the instruction is to shift the burden of going forward with the evidence to the defendants does not render the instruction violative of due process. Barnes v. United States, supra. Nor does the permissive inference violate appellant’s privilege against self-incrimination. Id.
Boldface mine.
As related to the Fifth Amendment, you would want to read Barnes v United States, 412 U.S. 837 (1973), and the precedent it built off of. From Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 (1925), boldface mine:
[T]he Act of February 9, 1909, c. 100, 35 Stat. 614, as amended by the Act of January 17, 1914, c. 9, 38 Stat. 275 [...] provides, among other things, that [...] whenever the defendant on trial is shown to have, or to have had, possession of such opium, etc., "such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury."
[...]
The point that the practical effect of the statute creating the presumption is to compel the accused person to be a witness against himself may be put aside with slight discussion. The statute compels nothing. It does no more than to make possession of the prohibited article prima facie evidence of guilt. It leaves the accused entirely free to testify or not as he chooses. If the accused happens to be the only repository of the facts necessary to negative the presumption arising from his possession, that is a misfortune which the statute under review does not create but which is inherent in the case. The same situation might present itself if there were no statutory presumption and a prima facie case of concealment with knowledge of unlawful importation were made by the evidence. The necessity of an explanation by the accused would be quite as compelling in that case as in this; but the constraint upon him to give testimony would arise there, as it arises here, simply from the force of circumstances and not from any form of compulsion forbidden by the Constitution.
Judgement affirmed.
~Max
I was watching an episode of Pawn Stars where the pawn shop inadvertently possessed a stolen item. When the person who had filed the police report for the stolen item showed up at the shop to claim it, the owner said “You can get it back once you pay us exactly how much we bought it off the criminal for”.
Is this actually true, you have to buy it back from the Pawn shop despite it being stolen from you? How does that make any sense?