And they can be quite rough about it.
Counting on courts to limit abuses by law enforcement is a lesson in futility. That ship sailed a long time ago.
I don’t know exactly but I heard about a year ago that the law changed and if you refuse to answer questions you need to explicitly cite the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
In downtown Portland, Maine yes they can, but in rural Maine, NO!
Officer: where are you going?
Perp: south
Officer: where are you coming from
Perp: duh...north
““[a]n individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated only during a custodial interrogation.” Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 2005)””
Yup, but still keep your mouth shut if you are in or out of custody or what you may believe or not believe to be ‘custodial interrogation.’
If things get dicey the only word you say is “Lawyer.”
This will be an interesting opinion to read, and I will have to read it in its entirety. My current understanding of the law is that:
1) The police must have a legitimate reason, at least “reasonable suspicion” for any stop of an individual;
2) If there is are legitimate reasons for the stop, the person is required to provide identification. Identity has long been held to NOT be covered by the 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause;
3) Refusal to provide identity in many states a crime, typically a misdemeanor, and the person is likely to be arrested for it;
4) The person stopped is under no obligation to provide any further information other than identity, and can refuse to answer;
5) Whether the refusal to answer gives rise to further suspicions that would extend a stop and give probable cause for full seizure and search is much more open-ended and very much dependent on the facts justifying the stop and the questions asked.
Having said that, I will read the opinion and see if it really does break any new ground.
Being charged with obstruction of justice, one could axe the judge that very question.
Yes they can. Any other questions?
Courts sometimes get the Constitution wrong.
If the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and then a Court case rules that Islam is now the national religion, is anyone obligated to honor that ruling, since anyone with an IQ > 20 can tell the Constitution is being violated.
Cop pulls Boudreaux over.
Says I notice your eyes look a little red, have you been drinking?
Boudreaux says, No sir, I notice your eyes look a little glazed, have you been eating donuts?
Maybe the FIFTH circuit should read the FIFTH amendment.
You are NOT safe in answering questions by the police just because they haven’t Mirandized you. They may still be able to use your answers against you in court.
” the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, “I invoke my privilege against self-incrimination.””
Let me repeat that.... “I invoke my privilege against self-incrimination”.
Then, you need not answer ANY questions. You are not a lawyer. How could you know what questions might self incriminate you? They, on the other hand, know exactly which seemingly harmless questions to ask YOU!
Answering some questions and then not answering another can be used against you. The Ah Hah! non-answer. (I just made that name up).
Don’t HELP the police convict you. If you want to plead “guilty” (because you are, or feel responsible), go ahead, but ONLY AFTER YOU TALK TO A LAWYER! Until then, say NOTHING!
It’s not getting away with anything. It is your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT as an American citizen.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html
1. Fifth Amendment
Alexander’s argument that Garza and the officers retaliated against him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to answer Officer Garza’s questions is easily disposed of. As this court has noted on multiple occasions, “[a]n individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated only during a custodial interrogation.” Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir. 2015) (same). Indeed, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right which can be violated only at trial.” Murray, 405 F.3d at 285; see also Winn v. New Orleans City, 919 F. Supp. 2d 743, 752 (E.D. La. 2013) (same). In other words, the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from being coerced into making an incriminating statement, and then having that statement used against him at trial. But Alexander was never tried. His Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated. 4
*4 The parties spill much ink on the issue of whether Miranda rights attach during non-custodial interrogations. That argument is a red herring in this case, because any incriminating statements Alexander might have theoretically uttered had he answered Garza’s questions could not have been used against him in court anyway—there was no trial.
Only a lawyer could consider the above to be anything resembling a reasonable statement. I'd call it insanity, but those of us who actually read the dreck that originates in our legal system these days would not find it unusual at all. It seems that the author of the opinion thinks that as long as there was no trial (because ultimately the state had no case against him, the police can demand that he answer any question they might have. It's obvious from the rest of the decision's discussion of this that they feel the government has the right to compel someone to speak. It was an illuminating look at government-think.
I understand driving to be a privilege, and not a right. If the cops specifically ask you about your driving, you have the right to clam-up, but don’t be surprised if you lose your license, along with possibly more than that.