You have the right to remain silent...

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,651
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Ok, so what happens if I say "No, I do not understand that," and confess whatever it is I did? Is everything I said inadmissable, and any sort of evidence they may find based on what I said tossed as well?
 
If you run your yap you waive the rights as stated by the arresting officer. Which is probably what should happen to anybody who's too dumb to understand the doctrine. :rofl:
EdFred said:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Ok, so what happens if I say "No, I do not understand that," and confess whatever it is I did? Is everything I said inadmissable, and any sort of evidence they may find based on what I said tossed as well?
Click to expand...
 
It really depends on the department. Some deparments will then break it down and ask if they understand each part..if not attempt to explain it. Generally they'll try to get them to say they understand the rights before they probe them to talk.

The extent of them caring if you understand it -- really depends on the circumstances. If you're just drunk and stupid they'll probably just laugh at you and throw you in the squad.

Once again..depends on the department..and the professionalism of the officers. Your results will vary. This does actually become a problem when there are language barriers.

There are a number of supreme court rulings on all this.
 
EdFred said:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Ok, so what happens if I say "No, I do not understand that," and confess whatever it is I did? Is everything I said inadmissable, and any sort of evidence they may find based on what I said tossed as well?
Click to expand...

As said by others "it depends". If they were actually questioning you, it could become a grey area real fast. If you just "say it". It would probably fall under spontaneous exclamation which would make it perfectly acceptable as evidence.
 
What will happen is the police will find your post here and use it as evidence that you do understand the rights as explained regardless of your answer. If they don't find it, they can still work to make a case that your answer was a lie, and will probably succeed since it shouldn't be that hard for them to prove that you understand English and aren't a moron.
 
I don't know I have landed at an unlit grass field at night more than once. :D
 
EdFred said:
I don't know I have landed at an unlit grass field at night more than once. :D
Click to expand...
Well, you can feel free to testify to that in court as evidence of being a moron, but I think it would be counterproductive in the long run.
 
Ron White: "I had the right to remain silent, I just did not have the ability"
 
At TSA checkpoints, apparently, they don't think you have that right.
 
EdFred said:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Ok, so what happens if I say "No, I do not understand that," and confess whatever it is I did? Is everything I said inadmissable, and any sort of evidence they may find based on what I said tossed as well?
Click to expand...

Well, if you simply confess to everything you did Miranda does not apply and you are up a creek without a paddle. Miranda only deals with questioning :raspberry:
 
alaskaflyer said:
Well, if you simply confess to everything you did Miranda does not apply and you are up a creek without a paddle. Miranda only deals with questioning :raspberry:
Click to expand...
Which is when you get into a game of chicken. Wait long enough and they usually start talking.
 
The right answer to Ed's question is : "It depends."

Explain it again. If that doesn't work out, break it down. If they are obviously being stubborn then I will move on and hope that the judge wasn't born yesterday. If they are so handicapped (one way or another) that they really can't understand, then I would consult with the US Attorney as to my next move.

As Jesse says the best possible scenario is to listen to a suspect without ever having asked a question. Works quite often :blowingkisses: Not just to Ron White ;)

The "do you understand?" part didn't become a fundamental part of the warning until later.
 
FlyNE said:
As Mark said, if they don't understand their rights you don't ask them questions. If you don't ask them questions and they admit to things it would be a spontaneous utterance (or spontaneous exclamation) and would likely be admissible.

http://www.google.com/search?q=spontaneous+utterance+OR+exclamation
Click to expand...
Also questions can be asked without reading it at all. The police will ask away and hopefully you already know you don't have to answer it. The reading of that will happen if you are about to be detained in one way or another.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not reading 90 pages of blog. Can you be a bit more specific?
Click to expand...
You don't need to read 90 pages of blog- the story is at the top.
Here's some more:
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/incident-at-st-louis-international.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/index.html#cnnSTCText

Steve Bierfeldt is the person that was detained briefly by the TSA for carrying $4700 and asking about his constitutional rights, but not answering the TSA questions unless they told he that he was required to answer them.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Well, if you simply confess to everything you did Miranda does not apply and you are up a creek without a paddle. Miranda only deals with questioning :raspberry:
Click to expand...

I believe technically it deals with "custodial interrogation." Been a while since I studied that, so I could be wrong. All I remember is that there is a ridiculous amount of case law on just the topic of determine what custodial interrogation is. Sheeeesh :dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
How do you figure that?
Click to expand...
Because at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments don't apply at airport checkpoints. You can't express your opinions, you're required to undergo the kind of search that in any other circumstance requires at least reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, and you're detained until you answer any and every question the TSA screener thinks is relevant.
 
jesse said:
Also questions can be asked without reading it at all. The police will ask away and hopefully you already know you don't have to answer it. The reading of that will happen if you are about to be detained in one way or another.
Click to expand...
The Miranda issue comes into play in what is called a "custodial" situation, i.e., when they have you in custody. They don't have to read you your rights until you are placed in custody officially ("you are under arrest") or de facto. Before that, if you say it, they can in general use it, even if it's in response to a question.
 
lawingr said:
I believe technically it deals with "custodial interrogation." Been a while since I studied that, so I could be wrong. All I remember is that there is a ridiculous amount of case law on just the topic of determine what custodial interrogation is. Sheeeesh :dunno:
Click to expand...

Well actually most cases deal with what it isn't ;)

I have occasion to give it only a few times a year. Most of the time it doesn't apply - unlike on tv.

The old three-pronged test was 1)questioned; 2) by a law enforcement officer or government agent; 3)while in custody. That has expanded to a six-point test for hypertechnical reasons but the three-legged stool is still a good analogy.
 
Last edited:
jmaynard said:
Because at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments don't apply at airport checkpoints.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do, and the courts have held so. However...
You can't express your opinions, you're required to undergo the kind of search that in any other circumstance requires at least reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, and you're detained until you answer any and every question the TSA screener thinks is relevant.
Click to expand...
Only if you want to get on the airplane, and it is equally your right not to do that, but if you do, you are considered to have agreed to the screening process, including questioning. In any event, this has been tested up to the USSC, and the nine wise souls say the searches and questioning involved in airport security screening are not violations of your constitutional rights. See US v. Lopez (328 F. SUPP. 1077 (1977)), Terry v Ohio (392 US 1 (1968)), US v. Lindsey (451 F. 2d 701 (1971)), US v Epperson (454 F. 2d 769 (1972)), and US v. Kroll (481 F. 2d 884 (1973)). As for the St Louis case, it's clear from the posting on their own web site that TSA thinks that employee was out of line.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
How do you figure that?
Click to expand...

Cap'n Jack said:
Maybe from the St. Louis incident back in March?
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?p...ogID=2336044328955501444&isPopup=false&page=2
Click to expand...

jmaynard said:
Because at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments don't apply at airport checkpoints. You can't express your opinions, you're required to undergo the kind of search that in any other circumstance requires at least reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, and you're detained until you answer any and every question the TSA screener thinks is relevant.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Actually, they do, and the courts have held so. However...
Only if you want to get on the airplane, and it is equally your right not to do that, but if you do, you are considered to have agreed to the screening process, including questioning. In any event, this has been tested up to the USSC, and the nine wise souls say the searches and questioning involved in airport security screening are not violations of your constitutional rights. See US v. Lopez (328 F. SUPP. 1077 (1977)), Terry v Ohio (392 US 1 (1968)), US v. Lindsey (451 F. 2d 701 (1971)), US v Epperson (454 F. 2d 769 (1972)), and US v. Kroll (481 F. 2d 884 (1973)). As for the St Louis case, it's clear from the posting on their own web site that TSA thinks that employee was out of line.
Click to expand...


Ron, the TSA does whatever they think they can get away with. The TSA has said that the employee was out of line only in that he was abusive to the passenger, not for demanding answers or calling the cops.

Here's the justification the TSA uses: once you begin the screening process (the TSA has defined that as the ID check) you may not leave or proceed until they are done with the screening. And the screening may be anything that the screeners and supervisor deem necessary. If you fail to respond to questions, they will detain you until you answer or they will call law enforcement to compel answers. If you fail to answer, you may not leave and exit the airport (because the screening isn't over) and you may not proceed to your flight. Now there must be a practical limit, but what really happens is that the police are called to compel an answer or to arrest you.

If you want to see how it can play out, read this post from another board about a recent incident at BGR: Link to BGR post

I ask for the FSD and airline GSC and am denied.

During baggage search I received a long, detailed questioning on the following:

-Name of my employer, nature of my employment, time spent in the field
-Nature of my business trip, where I was staying, why it was brief
-Frequency of flying and location of residence
-As mentioned above, questioning about IDs in my possession which were all standard office building keycards
-The purpose of many simple things such as network cables in my bag
-Specific store names where I had purchased souvenirs
-What type of car I rented, how I liked it, how much gas it used. They helped themselves to examining the rental receipt and gas receipt that they found.

When I directed the TSO to stop asking me questions and complete the bag screening she accused me of "being rude" and stopped looking through anything until I started answering her questions.
Click to expand...

There are many TSA folks that truly believe they have the power over the people. This is why we need to keep them out of GA.
 
wsuffa said:
Here's the justification the TSA uses: once you begin the screening process (the TSA has defined that as the ID check) you may not leave or proceed until they are done with the screening. And the screening may be anything that the screeners and supervisor deem necessary. If you fail to respond to questions, they will detain you until you answer or they will call law enforcement to compel answers. If you fail to answer, you may not leave and exit the airport (because the screening isn't over) and you may not proceed to your flight. Now there must be a practical limit, but what really happens is that the police are called to compel an answer or to arrest you.
Click to expand...
And, as I said earlier (with case citations), the USSC says it's all constitutional once you attempt to board an airliner, and there are no violations of the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments involved. People may not like it, but that's the legal situation. Also, while they can call LE, and LE can ask questions and make you miserable, none of them can compel answers other than as a condition of boarding.
 
Ron Levy said:
And, as I said earlier (with case citations), the USSC says it's all constitutional once you attempt to board an airliner, and there are no violations of the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments involved. People may not like it, but that's the legal situation. Also, while they can call LE, and LE can ask questions and make you miserable, none of them can compel answers other than as a condition of boarding.
Click to expand...

Except I am only attempting to board an airliner once I am down the jetway. If I wanted, I could go through screening, and purposefully miss my flight because I never attempted to board the airliner.
 
Ron Levy said:
And, as I said earlier (with case citations), the USSC says it's all constitutional once you attempt to board an airliner, and there are no violations of the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments involved. People may not like it, but that's the legal situation. Also, while they can call LE, and LE can ask questions and make you miserable, none of them can compel answers other than as a condition of boarding.
Click to expand...

Which is why we REALLY need to keep these tools way the heck away from GA.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, they do, and the courts have held so.
Click to expand...
Try to exercise the rights they recognize, and see where that gets you.

Only if you want to get on the airplane, and it is equally your right not to do that, but if you do, you are considered to have agreed to the screening process, including questioning.
Click to expand...
However, that is the only time you have no right to terminate the questioning yourself. Once you start, you cannot leave, and you cannot stop them asking questions, and you cannot stop answering questions, and you cannot get the advice of an attorney. This is true in no other interaction with a government agent outside of being arrested.

In any event, this has been tested up to the USSC, and the nine wise souls say the searches and questioning involved in airport security screening are not violations of your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
None of the cases you cite came during the current TSA Gestapo regime.

As for the St Louis case, it's clear from the posting on their own web site that TSA thinks that employee was out of line.
Click to expand...
Only because he got caught and made a PR stink.
 
EdFred said:
Except I am only attempting to board an airliner once I am down the jetway. If I wanted, I could go through screening, and purposefully miss my flight because I never attempted to board the airliner.
Click to expand...
That's your interpretation. The courts have held otherwise -- consistently, often, repeatedly, and for decades -- and TSA's position is consistent with those rulings.
 
steingar said:
Which is why we REALLY need to keep these tools way the heck away from GA.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely. The reason the should stay out of GA is because GA is not a threat to national security and doesn't require such measures, so it's a waste of scarce and expensive national resources to apply them to GA. IOW, it's a matter of resource allocation and threat assessment, not legal rights.
 
jmaynard said:
However, that is the only time you have no right to terminate the questioning yourself. Once you start, you cannot leave, and you cannot stop them asking questions, and you cannot stop answering questions, and you cannot get the advice of an attorney.
Click to expand...
Where did you hear that?
This is true in no other interaction with a government agent outside of being arrested.
Click to expand...
Not true even there. If you are arrested, you cannot leave, but you can refuse to answer questions and they must allow access to an attorney before and during questioning.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's your interpretation. The courts have held otherwise -- consistently, often, repeatedly, and for decades -- and TSA's position is consistent with those rulings.
Click to expand...

For DECADES? Wrong answer. It's only been for the past 7+ years that non-passengers have not been able to go to the gate area. You could mill around the terminal for hours and never attempt to board an airliner. Just like now, going through a checkpoint does not mean you are boarding an airliner. After all, people that work on the other side of the screening area aren't boarding an airliners, and they go through security.
 
Ron Levy said:
Where did you hear that?
Click to expand...

There's been a court case that held that once you start screening you cannot stop them (and you cannot leave) and you must do whatever they demand until they decide to clear you. The court set no practical limit.

Only they don't call it "detention", even though that's exactly what it is.

In another forum, some TSA folks outright said that the Constitution doesn't apply at the checkpoint (which is true for CBP, but not true for TSA). This is why Bierfeldt is an important ruling.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The court cases go back to the 70's. If that ain't "decades," I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

So back in the 70's simply going to the gate area was considered trying to board an airliner? I went to the gate area many many many times and never attempted to board an airliner. Nor would it have ever been considered trying to board one.

I think you're full of it.
 
EdFred said:
So back in the 70's simply going to the gate area was considered trying to board an airliner? I went to the gate area many many many times and never attempted to board an airliner. Nor would it have ever been considered trying to board one.

I think you're full of it.
Click to expand...
I think you're misquoting me. The question is searches when attempting to board, not whether spectators can be searched. In any event, the cases are cited and you can look them up yourself if you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top