Originally posted by HandyDandy
What a cop-out.
Not at all.. Ive provided you and others with the info, yet you ignore it simply because you want to argue for arguments sake. Hence willfull
Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please site the law (even any law) that states I must answer your silly questions without an attorney present and I'll drop it.
Off the top of my head and in general depending on state -
* - Failure to provide identification to law enforcement
* - Failure to identify as a witness
* - Concealing an offense
* - Obstruction
* - Hindering prosecution
* - Perjury
* - False declarations
* - False Affidavits
* - False Reports
* - False impersonation (not of emergency services)
* - Failure to obey lawful command
* - Resisting / interfering with a lawful detention / stop / arrest.
etc etc etc....
Refusal to identify as a witness.
575.190. 1. A person commits the crime of refusal to identify as a witness if, knowing he has witnessed any portion of a crime, or of any other
incident resulting in physical injury or substantial property damage, upon demand by a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his
official duties, he refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and present address to such officer.
2. Refusal to identify as a witness is a class C misdemeanor.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Let me expand on this since it seems to be missed by people... If you are the target of a criminal investigation, you are arrested and you are being
asked guilt seeking questions, you can refuse and ask for a lawyer.
Absent the above its incumbent to cooperate with investigations if you have information that has a direct bearing on the investigation itself.
Information you have that can be used to clarify / determine guilt / innocence etc must be turned over. Not because Law Enforcement says so but
because every person in this country has the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and speedy trial, access to all information / evidence
collected during an investigation and the right to face their accusers and to cross examine them on the stand.
This leads to, and again in general -
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.
Back to the Topic at hand and why the above info applies and how your argument of miranda and refusal to provide info is flawed and wrong in this case
A motor vehicle accident is not automatically criminal. Law Enforcement is required by law to respond and investigate, however, property damage
between 2 parties in this manner is by defintion civil in nature. Exceptions will be C and I, DWI/DUI/DWR/DWS, no proof of insurance, to fast for
conditions etc etc etc.
The above falls under Implied Consent Laws which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court as a NON violationion of a persons 4th amendment / 5th
Originally posted by HandyDandy
But, as of now, you are 5 citations to 0 in my favor.
My job is not a popularity contest for starters.. Secondly a wrong personal opinion based on ignorance of the law and how its applied, which in tuurn
is supported by others who are just as ignorant on the law and star your posts, does not make you right.
You and others really should research the information and legalities involved and understand the difference between the function of law enforcement
and a lawyer, which branch each work for, what setting is appropriate to make an argument along the lines you are arguing and who the ultimate
authority is on an answer.
You also need to understand that lawyers, both defense and prosecution, are officers of the court. A defense attorney who advises a client to break
the law can be charged as well.
Hiibel vs. State of Nevada
The U.S. Supreme Court decision expands the right of police to detain and obtain information from individuals without arresting them. In his
majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “,officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in
order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.”,
The U.S. Supreme Court had been asked to rule that forcing a person to provide a name violated the person’,s Fourth Amendment protection from
unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
Justice Kennedy stated that Mr. Hiibel did not explain how disclosing his name could be used against him.
Justice Kennedy was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquest and Justices Sandra Day O’,Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence
The ruling by the US Supreme Court says the very thing you are saying you dont have to do - supply basic pedigree information to law enforcement
during an investigation, like a traffic stop or traffic accident.
Care to clarify your false accusations / assumptions in your post here -
Your assumption and lie
You really need to move past the immature habbit of trying to make an argument by purposely ignoring what people state only to fill in the blanks you
ignored by interjecting your own wrong opinion as something they said. You and Honor both have a bad habbit of doing so and it needs to stop. If
thats the only manner in which you guys can make your arguments then I completely understand why you both hold the views you do and why you choose
willfull ignornace over facts.
edit on 31-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)