1997-05-23 - Re: “You have the right to remain silent” (fwd)

Header Data

From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Message Hash: efe8e4427e63be6acda82c214d3515fe70ed80ac521840bb7b544d0af08e5ba6
Message ID: <199705230103.UAA18097@einstein.ssz.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-23 01:50:53 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:50:53 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:50:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: "You have the right to remain silent" (fwd)
Message-ID: <199705230103.UAA18097@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Hi,

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:08:27 -0400
> To: "Willaim H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: "You have the right to remain silent"

> they can't order you to talk to them.  They can arrest you with probable
> cause 
> and detain you briefly for purposes of investigation.

They can arrest you at will w/ or w/o probable cause. If they can't produce
probable cause at your hearing then a writ of habeas corpus comes into play.

They can't CHARGE you without probable cause, minor but important
distinction. As I understand it, the charges that are recorded when you
first go to the police station are not 'official' until your hearing and
a judge signs the paperwork.

The police can even arrest you as a witness or for 'protective custody'
and then even the habeas corpus gets murky because no charges are filed.
If they can convince a judge to go along they can even hold you in
communicado.

>  They can ask you for 
> your name and you may have to supply it,

According to the 5th(?) Federal District you don't even have to do that unless
you are driving a vehicle or otherwise operating under a public license.

> Since cops are not judges,

This particular point if kept in mind changes the interpretation of the
Constitution considerably. It also puts such actions as making it illegal
for citizens to own assault weapons but the police can questionable since
the constitution does not draw a distinction between law enforcement and the
citizenry, as it does with the judicial, legistlative and executive bodies.
It therefore follows that if I as Joe Citizen can't do it then a police
officer can't either since they have no constitutional rights that I don't
and the 10th Amendment prohibits expansion of federal power (and by
extension of the 14th, states) by anything other than that proscribed in the
constitution.

                                                    Jim Choate
                                                    CyberTects
                                                    ravage@ssz.com






Thread