State police swiping motorist debit, prepaid cards to seize money.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

X's point, which sailed blissfully into the wind, is twofold.

One, you don't have to be mirandized. Yep, you do have your fifth amendment all the time. And it's entirely possible to be arrested and indicted and convicted without ever being mirandized. Because you don't have to be except in certain circumstances.

Two, refusing to speak in any way, shape, or form can and will get you taken into custody in some situations.

Neither of which have anything to do with your fifth amendment rights, nor your perceived violation of it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's not going to go away.

originally posted by: Bedlam
There's something so #ed up about "The United States vs 14,232 dollars" that I just can't understand how that ever happened the first time.

They knew people were pirates but didn't have legal proof, so instead they charged the ships with crimes and confiscated them (this is also how we built the US Navy originally).

It went away for a long time after around 1820 I think it was, but was brought back to fight drugs. They couldn't nail the drug dealers on anything so they decided to write a law that would let them confiscate their cash anyways. It even worked for awhile, until departments started getting a cut of what they took.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Truth of the matter is that you should not talk to the police EVER.

Depending on circumstances that action can lead to an arrest.

Miranda is only applicable if a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions.

I only have to give you my ID.

If you think otherwise, you are one of the bad cops.......

www.aclunc.org...

a reply to: Aazadan

they're allowed to take it from your wallet and confiscate the funds until you can prove otherwise.

Why would the suspect prove how it is used? The judicial system has to prove it is for/from drugs. That's the problem.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Why would the suspect prove how it is used? The judicial system has to prove it is for/from drugs. That's the problem.

That's how it should work, not how it does work. Property charged with a crime has to prove its innocence, it has no constitutional protections. It definitely goes against the spirit of the law, but it's not against the letter of the law.

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Truth of the matter is that you should not talk to the police EVER.

Depending on circumstances that action can lead to an arrest.

Miranda is only applicable if a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions.

I only have to give you my ID.

If you think otherwise, you are one of the bad cops.......

www.aclunc.org...

Only as a motorist in California are you required to provide ID.

Probably why X said "depending on circumstances" as opposed to "all the time, everywhere, all the laws ever."

a reply to: Aazadan

So what you are implying is that if your wallet is illegally searched, the money can be taken and the person must prove it is legally gained funds. Seems like police should just take everyone's money.

Just trying to understand how this works.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Truth of the matter is that you should not talk to the police EVER.

Depending on circumstances that action can lead to an arrest.

Miranda is only applicable if a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions.

I only have to give you my ID.

If you think otherwise, you are one of the bad cops.......

www.aclunc.org...

Only as a motorist in California are you required to provide ID.

Probably why X said "depending on circumstances" as opposed to "all the time, everywhere, all the laws ever."

Fair enough.

You guys obviously know the loopholes to put people in cages far more than we would.

a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

Yea, that pesky thing on the very link you posted is SUCH a loophole.

Know your rights. #allofthem

ETA - you actually exemplify the crux of the issue. People read a little on the internet and watch a YouTube video and suddenly think they're a constitutional scholar. If you're gonna go the route of arguing about your rights, you should probably come strong and come correct. A little knowledge is juuuust enough knowledge to make yourself look like a doofus.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So circumventing people's rights (5th ammendment) isn't a loophole to you?

I guess tax evasion by placing your funds in an out of country account isn't considered a loophole to you?

Anything that skirts the laws but is lawful is a loophole. Hence the phrase.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
ETA - you actually exemplify the crux of the issue. People read a little on the internet and watch a YouTube video and suddenly think they're a constitutional scholar. If you're gonna go the route of arguing about your rights, you should probably come strong and come correct. A little knowledge is juuuust enough knowledge to make yourself look like a doofus.

And you exemplify the other crux.

Thinking you are superior.

a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

Pointing out that you were incorrect (or half right, at best) in your comment means it's a loophole? Why don't you go reread your link, buddy. The only time you're required to show a cop your ID in California is when you're driving. On foot? Nope, not required. Hell, you don't even have to show an ID as long as you provide a name and birthdate.

How you've spun that into somehow being a loophole in favor of law enforcement is an incredible display of mental gymnastics.

Beyond that, I'm not even in California so there's really no loophole for me to exploit, were there a loophole to begin with. Which, again, there isn't. My state doesn't have any requirement to ID yourself except during a traffic stop.

Being more knowledgeable in the law than you are doesn't make me superior. It makes my knowledge of the law superior to yours. That is what it is. Has no bearing on what kind of person you are, or think you are, or think I am, or you think I think I am. Pointing out that trying to argue the law with a cursory knowledge of same doesn't make anybody superior to anybody, it's just a fact. I'm sorry that being corrected is offensive to you.

ETA -

a reply to: GiulXainx

You must be new here..the police can and do what they please often enough..also the fact a card reader is used indicates this is not about physical cash. Cops on this program are like schoolyard bullies waiting around the corner to steal your lunch money. Even if nothing illegal is found try getting your damn money back.

You refer to not arousing suspicion..are you saying you did something to arouse suspicion? in order for this cop to try and put words in an accident victim's mouth? and then double test. My point is I don't think one has to be guilty of squat to be treated like you have done something.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks for clarifying for me. Exactly my points.

Its one of the reasons in my first post back at the bottom of page 3 I explained what pedigree information is and how its different from information that would normally fall under an invocation of the 5th amendment.


a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner
To clarify for the other poster your 5th amendment only applies -
A - You are under arrest by law enforcement and they are asking guilt seeking questions.
B - In court / proceedings where you are under oath and any answer you give could be used in a criminal prosecution against yourself.

Invocation of your 5th amendment, when its applicable, is all or nothing. You dont get to answer some questions and refuse to answer others. You dont get to give your side of the story and then invoke your 5th amendment. If you want an example of how that doesnt work research Lois Lerner and her congressional hearing where she gave her defense the tried to invoke her 5th amendment.

Also, as I pointed out, the 5th amendment is designed to protect an individual from being forced to produce evidence against him / her self in criminal proceedings. While a person can invoke the 5th in civil proceedings the supreme curt has held -

"the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'"[58] "'Failure to contest an assertion ... is considered evidence of acquiescence ... if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'"

As for civil forfeiture under a criminal enforcement umbrella -
Boyd vs. United States

"A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."

Which is why I questioned the ability of Law Enforcement to take a "civil action", civil forfeiture, when the supreme Court has declared civil forfeiture under a criminal law prosecution is considered "criminal" and not "civil" and that a person can invoke their 5th amendment in those circumstances. By extension being forced to turn over cash / electronic cards for the police to "search" roadside without probable cause / consent / warrant and ultimately criminal charges, in my opinion, is a due process violation / civil rights violation.

A search absent just cause.

As for your assertion it applies at all times I would disagree. The 5th amendment protects a person from being forced to provide evidence against themselves in criminal proceedings. We already know there is a reduced 5th amendment ability in civil proceedings. The last part is whats called a material witness warrant.

A material witness is a person who is presumed to have information about the subject matter of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution which is critical to the outcome of the case or trial. Thus, the court must make every reasonable effort to allow such a witness to testify, including a continuance (delay in a trial) to accommodate him/her if late or temporarily unavailable.

Under a 1984 federal statute, prosecutors may seek an arrest warrant if a potential witness's testimony is "material" to a criminal proceeding and the individual is likely to flee. A judge must approve the warrant, and the witness is entitled to a bond hearing and a court-appointed attorney. The limit of the bond amount varies by jurisdiction and the judge's discretion. Federal law requires that authorities get a judicial officer's permission to hold a material witness for any length of time. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until trial testimony or the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

While a material witness warrant is "criminal" in nature, a person still cannot use the 5th amendment to avoid providing material evidence in a criminal proceeding where they are not the focus of the trial / proceedings.

a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

If you are going to refuse to speak to the officer outside of your pedigree information then you leave no other possibility than the officer citing you for the reason for the stop. Had you actually taken the time to speak with the officer and explain your side you may have ended up with a warning.

Secondly, again, the 5th applies in criminal proceedings (misdemeanor / Felony). A lot of traffic violations are neither, as they are considered infractions.

You and the ACLU should try again.

* - Whren vs. United States

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision[1] that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop.

The case's Supreme Court syllabus states that the court held that "the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective." In other words, it does not matter if the traffic stop was pretextual, so long as there was independent justification for the stop.

* - Salinas vs. Texas - used in an attempt to apply the 5th amendment to traffic stops even though the case is based on a criminal investigation of murder.

* - Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984)

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense, once they are in custody, the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to them pursuant to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Previously, some courts had been applying Miranda only to serious offenses.

The parts in bold / centered parts below are done by me to highlight the courts ruling.

Opinion of Court

***Miranda applies to custodial interrogations involving minor traffic offenses.***

Routine questioning of motorists detained pursuant to traffic stops is not custodial interrogation under Miranda.

The Miranda rule prohibits the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation unless the police properly advised the defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights and the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights and agreed to talk to the police. The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards are "custody" and "interrogation." Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Unquestionably the defendant in Berkemer was interrogated. In fact, he was interrogated twice - prearrest roadside questioning and post arrest questioning at the jail. In neither case had the officer advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. As for post arrest interrogation, the defendant was in custody since he had been arrested. The issue for the court was whether to create an exception to Miranda for custodial interrogations that related to minor offenses.[4]

The Supreme Court declined to carve out such an exception because to do so would sacrifice the certainty and clarity of the Miranda rule.[5] The pre arrest interrogation raised the issue of whether detention was equivalent to custody for purposes of the Miranda rule.[6] In its opinion, the Court stated:
“ The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way... However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda. ”

The Court found that there were two significant differences between interrogation of person taken into custody and detainees. First was the length of the detention. Investigative detentions were brief and usually culminated in the issuance of a citation and release of the defendant. Second, the circumstances attendant to roadside detention were substantially less coercive and compulsive than those typically surrounding custodial interrogation.[7] Specifically the Court noted that during most traffic stops the actions of the officer were "exposed" to public view and that stops typically involved only one or two officers.[8]

A police officer can stop a vehicle if he has a reasonable articulable reason to suspect that “criminal activity is occurring.”[9]

The officer may detain for sufficient time to conduct a reasonable investigation that either confirms or dispels his suspicions

The officer is not required to arrest the suspect once the officer has PC. The officer may delay the arrest for purposes of conducting a non-custodial interrogation.

Officer may interrogate the suspect without advising him of his Miranda rights

The officer may ignore suspect's attempts to exercise her Miranda rights because the rights have not attached.

For example, if a person who is being detained on suspicions of impaired driving asks to contact a lawyer the officer may ignore the statement and continue to question the suspect.

For alcohol related investigations when a breath test is required the officer must read the person their Miranda warning before starting the investigative question section of the AIR. Implied consent is read prior to the breath test establishing the reason for the request and actions if the person refuses to provide a sample.

So I will say it again. Under certain circumstances refusing to answer questions during a traffic stop can lead to an arrest for the infraction. Your 5th amendment in those areas is not applicable. once you are arrested though, you will be read Miranda. Invocation that results in your arrest defeats the purpose of the person trying to invoke, especially in an area the courts have consistently upheld the 5th amendment is not applicable.

Also as you can see the court has determined a baseline of when the 5th amendment "attaches" to the situation.

And some of you who think the Bundy's are crazy I'm completely sure you can find a way to justify this too? Amiright? America = to hell in a hand basket to thundering applause.

Pathetic and weak.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Aazadan

So what you are implying is that if your wallet is illegally searched, the money can be taken and the person must prove it is legally gained funds. Seems like police should just take everyone's money.

Just trying to understand how this works.

If you're detained and your wallet is in plain sight, it's not an illegal search.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Aazadan

So what you are implying is that if your wallet is illegally searched, the money can be taken and the person must prove it is legally gained funds. Seems like police should just take everyone's money.

Just trying to understand how this works.

If you're detained and your wallet is in plain sight, it's not an illegal search.

You don't seem to be very versed in case law as it pertains to the 4th Amendment. You also don't seem to care to uphold it and are probably aware of the government and it's lower instituted gestapo wiping their asses with it because paper with words only means anything if people are willing to fight for what those words say.

Either way, your definition of the 4th is wrong, has been proven wrong more times than anyone can count on their fingers or toes by courts both local and federal across the country for more than 100 years. Because they are doing it anyway does not make it right nor just and least of all, legal and in good faith of the Constitution.

It only further solidifies the militarized police state the US is gradually becoming and our ever eroding rights under the Constitution by indoctrination through those that are poorly informed and educated in history that are allowing it to happen. Mostly by home grown and gardened pacifists such as yourself who do not understand the complexity of the world and country we now live in compared to where it started.

But, by all means, keep saying it's all completely normal.

So what we have here are bandit cops exercising a stagecoach robbery.