So NJ troopers arrest woman for remaining silent, where's Miranda?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

All that anecdotal silliness you posted has nothing to do with capitalism, that is nepotism and cronyism and the women in question, when she sues, is not being reimbursed via capitalism, that is the socialized aspect of the public service sector bearing the burden.

originally posted by: roadgravel
An officer asking why one is pulled over seems to be a way to get a person to admit wrong doing. The officer could simply tell the person why.

That's exactly correct: it's a direct admission of guilt. Cops/authority want you to admit guilt, as it saves them time and headache since you admitted it (and should you then try to challenge in court), and many cops will tell this themselves.

a reply to: UnBreakable

nothing new, had the same experience with an officer back in 2005 in oregon, during arrest they kept asking questions about what happened, i kept politely telling them "i observe my right to remain silent" they kept repeating questions like they didnt hear me, id repeat my statement, then they started telling me it was obstruction of justice to not answer their questions, i disagreed and argued a little then repeated my statement, they then told me they would include a resisting arrest charge because of my refusal to answer their questions, i stated i have not and am not resisting i am merely remaining silent,

resisting arrest was charged, i did tell my public defender what happened, i even mentioned it to the judge, he convicted of resisting arrest anyway, they didnt give a # about my side of the story they never care about the common man, judges and public defenders always believe the polices word over yours.

originally posted by: pryingopen3rdeye
a reply to: UnBreakable

nothing new, had the same experience with an officer back in 2005 in oregon, during arrest they kept asking questions about what happened, i kept politely telling them "i observe my right to remain silent" they kept repeating questions like they didnt hear me, id repeat my statement, then they started telling me it was obstruction of justice to not answer their questions, i disagreed and argued a little then repeated my statement, they then told me they would include a resisting arrest charge because of my refusal to answer their questions, i stated i have not and am not resisting i am merely remaining silent,

resisting arrest was charged, i did tell my public defender what happened, i even mentioned it to the judge, he convicted of resisting arrest anyway, they didnt give a # about my side of the story they never care about the common man, judges and public defenders always believe the polices word over yours.

They knew something you did not the tight to remain silent involves criminal prosecution. Speeding is a civil matter under that you have the right to your day in court. Refusal to cooperate was indeed what caused the issue but as for resisting arrest that is different. Once the officer says he is placing you under arrest continuing to argue and refusing to comply gets resisting arrest. As for this woman not talking to officers will always end up at the police HQ. They will assume something is wrong drugs ect and will hold you until they figure out why and who you are. In all states when a police officer asks for identification you just can't ignore them you are required to produce ID and if you don't have that you need to give them your name and address.

If she simply told them who she was before they said they were placing her under arrest instead of deciding to ignore them she wouldn't have went the police precinct. She caused everyone more work this could have been handled over the radio instead. He would have dispatch check for criminal record or use terminal in police car depending. Nothing comes back he writes ticket and you can dispute it in court. Oh and as far as the ticket sign it it's not an admission of guilt that is determined by the judge and I've gotten out of lots if tickets in court. When thr judge asks you say not guilty present your case. Most of the time the judge dismisses the charge in severe cases my require traffic school had to do that twice because of my motorcycle it tends to sneak above the speed limit every now and then.

Finally if you decide to just pay the ticket for say parking violation or tail light thereally is no guilt involved it's just paying a fine this did happen and can't really dispute it your car was there.

a reply to: UnBreakable

So NJ troopers arrest woman for remaining silent, where's Miranda?

It went exactly where it went when big arnie punched the bloke in the face in the passenger seat in the movie when asked if he knew who Marrinda was, or however it went. They say things are flagged in the movies.

I happen to see that movie in a cinema and as it turns out everybody laughed at that scene.

a reply to: UnBreakable

This is totally ridiculous. These people claim to be LEOs? I thought the Miranda right was the most basic thing they teach you.

Well now you need to consider the possibility that they are being trained to do something else. Perhaps yours and the views of many others on here regarding the behavior of LEOs in the US today, is not driven by incompetence but by training or instruction, ie policy.

In my view, most Americans make the mistake of thinking they live in a nation ruled by we the people or by the stated constitution when in fact they may well be ruled by someone else.

As someone in history said, there is someone more powerful behind the curtain than the king himself.

2 questions..1. Why was she stopped in the first place and, 2. Was she ever charge with any offense.??

a reply to: Soloprotocol
1-Suspected of speeding
2-Trooper told Her She was arrested for "obstruction",but was never formally charged.Especially after the supervisor watched the video,and told her they had made a mistake..

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I understand and still believe in my statement.

We should all strive to be courteous and professional to each other. Something that was sorely lacking by both sides in that video.

And in another post I stated that I think he overstepped his authority in arresting her.

I never said the cop in the right here. Only that her behavior escalated the situation.

Her behavior was a perfect example of how a great attorney/lawyer should respond in this or any situation involving police and questions posed by same. I would hire her in an instant knowing that she performed precisely as one should and besides, this is but a possible traffic infraction at best where the court need only show preponderance rather than beyond a reasonable doubt to "prove" a case. This usually means taking the citing officer's word over that of the defendant when there is no evidence to corroborate testimony. Albeit small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, this woman/Lawyer did have her 4th and 5th Amendment rights violated. How does one commit the crime of obstruction of justice by remaining silent? Even a statute making refusal to provide identification, when stopped by police a jail-able crime should be found unconstitutional, but for some reason, giving identification was found to not be incriminating, therefor authorizing the police to sanction someone who exercises their right to remain silent by hauling them off to jail under the guise of officer safety is merely a pressure and fear tactic that allows intimidation, lies, fear and threats by the police to attempt to get information from a citizen detained by police which, as we all know will be used against the citizen by the plaintiff, i.e. the State, County, City, town that claims jurisdiction by de facto; known more commonly as racketeering.

“Any lawyer worth his salt will tell [a] suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.” ~ Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

Of course being forced to give identification is just another of Satan's offspring undermining the 5th Amendment in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, which tries to justify this coercion claiming a name is not incriminating within the scope of the constitution.

I believe she did confess her identity as required by unconstitutional statute and her silence remained an intact right that was exercised. Once again, Jack boots have no use for citizens rights.

a reply to: roadgravel

That's exactly why they ask those questions. Everything a police officer asks you is potential evidence against you. Most people just answer any questions with realizing that.

Say you get pulled over and the cop thinks you've been drinking but has no real evidence to take it further...
"Where are you coming from tonight?"
"Applebee's"
"Have you had any drinks tonight?"
"Just one beer...I didn't even finish it"

In court, the police officer's testimony would be "Mr. Driver stated that he was coming from a bar and admitted he had drinking shortly before I stopped him."

a reply to: RedParrotHead

It is a fish expedition for sure. And police can lie to you get to get information which may not be in your best interest.

Where's Miranda?

He'll be standing right behind her in court, when all of this is tossed right back in the troopers faces. In fact, unless I'm badly mistaken, the Miranda has to be read to you, not just off the cuff recited to you... I may be mistaken, though.

This is going to go no where but bad for those troopers.

a reply to: roadgravel

Yep.

That's why silence is the best policy, right alongside lawyer up.

a reply to: Liquesence

Police Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?

You/Me: No, I don't.

Admit nothing, say less. Anything you can, and will, be used against you... True words.

a reply to: UnBreakable

# those pigs.

a reply to: seagull

When I got arrested (don't worry more then a decade ago) they never told me what I was being arrested for or read me any rights. The smallish cop had his hand on his gun in a very anxious way to even though I never raised my voice or challenged him on anything and complied with the arrest 100%. Then he proceeded to blast his teeny bopper pop at a rather loud level all the way to the police station, was rather surreal lol.

a reply to: LordDraconia

Wasn't exactly worried...

If they didn't Miranda you, and it later went to court, it should have been tossed on that technicality, or so my understanding goes...

a reply to: UnBreakable

What exactly do you know about the letters CON-fill in the blank---this includes The Con-stitution especially.

www.wakingtimes.com...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: LordDraconia

Wasn't exactly worried...

If they didn't Miranda you, and it later went to court, it should have been tossed on that technicality, or so my understanding goes...

Yep the judge was about 100x as nice as the cop I still remember him to this day!

originally posted by: seagull

Admit nothing, say less.

There was a video of a federal judge I should have saved the link to, who said "If you're being harassed or you're not sure why the stop is occurring, look them in the eye and state clearly "I do not consent to a voluntary interaction with a law enforcement official at this time. Am I being detained?" which is apparently the 'magic spell' to stop them claiming you weren't detained, they were just having a conversation with you.

Although if you're not streaming it to some server they can't get to, I'm not sure it would help. Eventually I'll get a chance to try it out, if I am back home for any length of time.