You have the right to remain....

[Shannow]

Ah well not any more.

My Police State Police in my State are pushing for the right to remain silent to be abolished.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ns...i-1225964137276

Remaining silent will be taken as an admission of guilt under changes to the law.

Years ago, when random breath testing was introduced, refusing a breath test was sufficient to lay drink driving charges. Largely accepted by the public as "common sense"

Thin end of the wedge once again.

 

[d00df00d]

...Whoa.

 

[rslifkin]

Wow. That's taking things too far.

 

[Spazdog]

But here in the states, (my state anyway) if you refuse a breath test, they will take a blood sample.
If you refuse they will request a blood sample.
If you refuse again they will have a judge sign a warrant, strap you to a restraint chair and forcibly remove said blood sample.

Is it legal? So far. Only one person I know of has had her blood evidence (.15) thrown out. She was a County District Court Judge. A "retired" Judge ruled that there was no probable cause for the arrest. (other than the 9 empty alcohol containers in her car that was going 92mph in a 70mph zone)

 

[meangreen01]

Outta control! Revolt!

 

[crinkles]

anyone or anystate following the UK example is an arse. who wants to be like them?

 

[CivicFan]

Don't you guys have the equivalent of the ACLU in Australia that is powerful enough to protect your rights against the government? That "NSW Civil Liberties Council" president doesn't sound influential enough to protect you.

 

[dnewton3]

Just that little pesky 5th ammendment standing in the way.

This isn't about democrats or republicans; this is about loss of liberty, and following (or forgetting) the "rule of law". I am a cop; I see no need for this type of subversion of the Constitution. A cop that cannot collect enough evidence and provide substantial testimony to get a conviction isn't worth his salt. I don't need to force a suspect to "testify" against himself. The fundemental concept that sets our system apart from others is that we presume you're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lays at the feet of the prosecution. I would not have it any other way.

This makes for interesting internet chatter, but I don't see much coming of it.

Just be careful you all don't tread down the "political" path on this ...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just that little pesky 5th ammendment standing in the way.

This isn't about democrats or republicans; this is about loss of liberty, and following (or forgetting) the "rule of law". I am a cop; I see no need for this type of subversion of the Constitution. A cop that cannot collect enough evidence and provide substantial testimony to get a conviction isn't worth his salt. I don't need to force a suspect to "testify" against himself. The fundemental concept that sets our system apart from others is that we presume you're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lays at the feet of the prosecution. I would not have it any other way.

This makes for interesting internet chatter, but I don't see much coming of it.

Just be careful you all don't tread down the "political" path on this ...

You know this is in Australia, right?

 

[willix]

Hello Eastern Germany.

 

[Jim 5]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just that little pesky 5th ammendment standing in the way.

This isn't about democrats or republicans; this is about loss of liberty, and following (or forgetting) the "rule of law". I am a cop; I see no need for this type of subversion of the Constitution. A cop that cannot collect enough evidence and provide substantial testimony to get a conviction isn't worth his salt. I don't need to force a suspect to "testify" against himself. The fundemental concept that sets our system apart from others is that we presume you're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lays at the feet of the prosecution. I would not have it any other way.



This is a very refreshing point of view, and sadly it appears to me that not every LEO understands or buys into this as the role they play in the justice system - just the good ones like you.

I hope that if I am ever investigated by a police officer, he is as intelligent and principled as you appear to be. I hope you are ranked highly and keep this understanding of the rule of law fresh in the minds of those you work with!

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just that little pesky 5th amendment standing in the way.

The fundamental concept that sets our system apart from others is that we presume you're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lays at the feet of the prosecution. I would not have it any other way.

Here, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, but in many third world countries you're presumed guilty when you're arrested by police and you need to prove that you are innocent. The corrupted judges in those countries think "if you are innocent then why you are arrested by police ?". If someone accused you of rape, you will be arrested without any evidence of rape, her word is enough to get you arrested and long prison term.

 

[Jim 5]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Just that little pesky 5th amendment standing in the way.

The fundamental concept that sets our system apart from others is that we presume you're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lays at the feet of the prosecution. I would not have it any other way.

Here, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, but in many third world countries you're presumed guilty when you're arrested by police and you need to prove that you are innocent. The corrupted judges in those countries think "if you are innocent then why you are arrested by police ?". If someone accused you of rape, you will be arrested without any evidence of rape, her word is enough to get you arrested and long prison term.


I've heard police officers tell a judge "I arrested him because he's guilty". Canada has the same presumption of innocence in its constitution, but our democracy/freedom protected by our constitution is eroded when LEOs forget what dnewton3 knows, and in those situations, we move closer to what you have described. Any move in that direction is something to be vigorously avoided.

 

[andyd]

The DUI stop and breathylizer test is outside of the 5th amendment because a driver's license is a privilege , not a right. At least that is how it was explained to me.

 

[Shannow]

That's the same as the conditional privilige of owning firearms.

Every 5 years or so, I must let the Police into my house to view my safe storage arrangements.

Any evidence for anything else that they see while in my house is invalid, until they get a warrant and come back.

 

[fdcg27]

First, I think we have a problem in sematics.
It is incorrect to adopt the common useage of police as law enforcement officers or officials.
It is the job of the courts to enforce the law.
It is the job of the police to arrest suspects.
Those arrests are then subject to review by a prosecutor, who may bring charges or not, and adjudicated by the courts, which may then enforce the law if they find defendant guilty, or if defendant pleads to a charge.
Second, arrest is often tantamount to conviction of some offense, particularly if defendant cannot afford counsel.
The law is a gritty thing at street level, and those who can't afford their own lawyer are likely to be ground up.
The difference between a misdemeanor and a felony is often the ability of a defendant to pay for a lawyer, and the difference between a DUI and Wreckless Op is the same.
Let's not kid ourselves that we don't live in a police state.
Unless we have the resources to afford decent representation, we are guilty upon arrest.

 

[expat]

The Golden Thread:

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt..."

I wonder if that still holds true?

 

[Pablo]

I was reading this piece about this lady in Spain, she claims to own the Sun. Yes our Sun. No Pucky. Yeah I know - not my point....point made in the article is that how individuals can or can't own a an extraterrestrial body (because by agreement states can't) - anyway the argument is she can't own the Sun by extension of this same agreement...ie...ALL governments of ALL countries grant rights to people.....WHOA

That is NOT what the USA is all about. The Government is granted certain powers by the people.....

 

[Dan4510]

Well the true story is that the problem in Texas is that we have a whole prison/industrial complex surrounding law enforcement that makes its living putting poeople in jail. In these small towns where this is happening, they usually pay the lowest, so they usually get the worst candidates.

For a good snapshot look up Tenaha, Texas. They were pulling people over taking cash and if you didn't give up the cash they would take your kids and put them in care of social services. Turns out police and prosecutors were sharing the cash.

story about the lawsuit:
Cnn Story About the Lawsuit

In the little Texas town I live in, if you get stopped for not using a turn signal the cop runs out yelling at you, holding onto his gun, ready to draw. Seems to be common practice here and doing it that way is just creating more problems than it solves.

So at this point in my life, I am far more afraid of the police than any criminal.

The greatest sin in Texas is not having that insurance card at the ready when asked.

Dan

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: andyd
The DUI stop and breathylizer test is outside of the 5th amendment because a driver's license is a privilege , not a right. At least that is how it was explained to me.


+1