Re: "You have the right to remain silent" (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>]

Hi,

Forwarded message:

> From: "Willaim H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 May 97 08:46:56 -0500
> Subject: Re: "You have the right to remain silent"

> 1) Under the 5th Amendment one is not required to give any assistance to
> the police in a criminal investegation.

Not exactly true. The police can take various body samples and other
'physical characteristics' (eg hand writing) for determination of issues
involved in a case without you being able to refuse under the 5th. Also, if
you are not being accussed of any crime then the 5th can't protect you,
unless you want to admit tacit involvment in some criminal activity. Which I
am sure to some mindsets is sufficient probable cause.

In many states, such as Texas, citizenry are required by law to report any
commission of a felony. Not doing so can itself be a felony.

Most swords cut both ways...

An interesting aspect of the 5th and physical sample taking is the way the
line is drawn between what is permitted and what isn't. Historicaly it has
been just fine for a cop to shove his finger down your throat to grab that
black molly but verboten to pump your stomach. It is generaly felt that
pumping your stomach is 'too' invasive. What I would like to know is what is
the record since that ruling of the farthest down somebodies throat
evidence has been legaly removed from and beyond which its legitimacy is
consistently denied.

Interesting issue regarding fingerprints for drivers license and the 5th
that has to my research remained untested is that the fingerprints were
taken while under no suggestion of wrongdoing and with no Miranda. Yet these
can be used as evidence in criminal cases even at the federal level. Now it
might be argued that if not explicitly stated there is an implicit contract
with the state government and the individual regarding the use in criminal
proceedings. But since the 14th does not work in reverse there can not be
any implicit federal contract. Can the interstate commerce clause be
extended to this?

> 2) That the Ramsey's were prime suspects after 48hrs and no suspect was
> found.

They were prime suspects the moment the operator answered the 911 line.

> 3) That this was SOP for the LEA's to go after family members/friends of a
> murder victim even though, on average, 1/3 of murders in the US are
> commited by strangers and this figure is incresing.

Meaning that 66% of the time they will get the culprit. Sounds like a good
strategy to me for clearing 66% of the cases quickly.


                                                       Jim Choate
                                                       CyberTects
                                                       ravage@ssz.com