Arrested for not yielding his Fifth Amendment right. . . .

[Contumacious]

Another citizen arrested for not answering a question while flying within the continental United States. . . .

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Citizens Arrested at Airport for Refusing Border Patrol Questions - YouTube

It's not a fifth amendment issue

Well, it appears that the SCOTUS has amended the Constitution in order to exempt the border checkpoints from Constitutional restraints

"In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976), we held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. "

Amending the Constitution is easy when the populace is narcotized and prejudiced.

.

.

 

[Clementine]

It is the right to refuse to answer questions to Government or law enforcement.

It's the right to not incriminate oneself. That doesn't mean that the government can't ask questions or detain anyone who are suspected of criminal actions or wrongdoing.

One has the right to refuse. And the simple act of refusing can not be the reason to detain them. They have to have other reasons.

Well, maybe us peons can be detained, but people like Kathleen Sebelius can take the 5th after being denied immunity and the left supports them.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It is the right to refuse to answer questions to Government or law enforcement.

It's the right to not incriminate oneself. That doesn't mean that the government can't ask questions or detain anyone who are suspected of criminal actions or wrongdoing.

One has the right to refuse. And the simple act of refusing can not be the reason to detain them. They have to have other reasons.

Not if there is probable cause. If someone is trying to travel through the country w/o a passport and refuses to answer questions, that can be considered probable cause. There has to be some sort of order or else the potential for chaos is astronomical.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I wonder if banning firearms at public colleges/universities is constitutional?

The issue has never come up before the Court. Of course, there's nothing stopping states from repealing such bans. As you know, gun-free zones are the number one killer in our nation in terms of mass shootings perpetrated by lunatics. They’re mentally lucid enough to know where the fish barrels are.

And right on cue, some leftist fool asked why one might be opposed to such bans. . . .

*Crickets chirping*

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's the right to not incriminate oneself.

And that would be the right to not answer questions, the right to not say anything at all. Right?

That doesn't mean that the government can't ask questions or detain anyone who are suspected of criminal actions or wrongdoing.

Funny. That's precisely what I wrote in the above.

So why did you neg rep me with the following missive, nitwit?

Hi, you have received -918 reputation points from TheGreatGatsby.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Learn what the 5th amendment is.

Cite in my post in the above where I said anything to the contrary.

This is a pretty important matter. It's only the stuff of inalienable rights.

Do you have any integrity? Are you going to admit your error on this board as openly as you made it?

In all likelihood, you merely read Jones' and Contamacious' baby talk, but failed to read my rebuttal.

The OP doesn't know the law?!

A police officer may ask all the questions he wants, which is precisely what I wrote in the above, and obviously he may detain one for the length of time it takes to ask one those questions . . . albeit, lawfully, only up to a point, and in most cases that point is contingent upon what one willingly permits it to be. Beyond that point he must not only have probable cause, a reasonable suspicion that one has committed a crime, he must state what that probable cause is . . . or let one go.

That's why only fools answer questions in police encounters, as every question the fool answers only prolongs that encounter (Got me a fish!): answers will only serve to provide further substance for probable cause; answers can only serve to incriminate the fool.

There is no such thing as a harmless question in such encounters.

"Where are you coming from?"

"From the Circle-K down the street back that way a bit."

"Ah! That’s the Circle-K where a robbery was just committed. I need to see your ID. What’s you name? Where do you live? Better yet, turn around and put your hands behind your back."

WRONG!

"Where are you coming from?"

"I don’t answer questions. Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

RIGHT!

A police officer is not your lord and master. He's a public servant accountable to you. He has no more reasonable expectation of privacy in public than you do. He’s not above the law anymore than you are. He’s not duly appointed with the authority to enforce the law until after he has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Notwithstanding, he can lawfully use deceit to trip you up, that he might induce you to divulge information that might incriminate you.

Hence, a police officer is not your brother or your friend or your lawyer or your pastor. His job in an investigation of you is to uncover incriminating information about you.

You don't answer questions in a police encounter unless it’s manifestly clear that you cannot possibly be the target of an investigation, and even then, in most cases, sans an immediate crisis, you should not do so without your lawyer present, just in case.

You ask the questions!

You ask the questions that are pertinent to your rights, and the police officer is bound by the law to answer them.

"Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

"On what grounds am I being detained?"

"What’s your name and badge number?"

Also:

"I don’t answer questions."

"I don’t willingly consent to any searches or seizures of my person or my property."

"I don’t willingly consent to provide any information or documents regarding my identity."

Check?

Don't answer questions. Never willingly divulge anything about yourself or your identity. You will lose every time. You don't have to willingly give such information within the territorial boundaries of the United States. It's the police officer's job to get information, and he gets paid whether you give it to him or not. If threatened with arrest, hold your ground. Most times it’s a bluff, a form of investigatory deception, to get information. Don't be a pussy.

If the cop isn't bluffing, for example, if there actually were a robbery at the Circle-K, the fool gave the cop information that could be used in a court of law to link him to a crime he may not have committed.

And once again, for those of you among us who confound the legal subtleties and blunt realities of police encounters due to the fact that you are by nature panty-pissing bootlicks or knee-jerk conformists in the face of officialdom, any information you give to a police officer, before or after you’ve been arrested and Mirandized, can be used against you.

If arrested, continue to remain silent and make the police officer take your ID, and if you don't have an ID on your person, ask the officer if he may lawfully command you to divulge your identity.

(While a police officer may use deception in his investigation of you, he may not lawfully lie to you in response to any specific questions that directly pertain to your rights. Also, stops entailing traffic violations, if and when the officer emphatically specifies the traffic law you allegedly violated, you must give him your driver license if commanded to do so.)

Aside from minor traffic violations, in most states, and upon arrest only, one is required to identify oneself at that time, typically, with name and address (See post below for further detailed clarification in Terry stops; there's a subtle wrinkle that requires us all to know local law.). But give no further information and never lie. If you have an ID, the officer will ask you to confirm that you are in fact the person so identified and if the information is current. A simple yes is your answer and nothing more.

In case law, while refusing to identify yourself upon arrest is not a crime, lying about your identity is, namely, actively or consciously impeding a lawful investigation.

I know the law. I am an open-carry citizen. Hence, it is imperative for me to know the law. I have been stopped a few times and, without exception, have walked away within minutes without giving even so much as my name. There are lots of stupid cops out there. Just search YouTube under "open-carry stops," for example. The smart ones readily recognize when they’re up against someone who knows his rights and will not bend, and they are smart enough to know it is highly unlikely that such a person is a criminal or up to no good.

Caveat: some states require you to identify yourself in open-carry stops, sans probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. I don't approve of such laws, and, in my opinion, they should be resisted. I don't live in one of those states.

Also, there are conceivably other situations wherein the above may not hold concerning a command to identity oneself or provide ID, DUI checkpoints, for example, which I deplore for the same reason I deplore any other kind of suspicionsless or warrantless stops within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has ruled, wrongfully, that checkpoints, DUI and immigration, are lawful as long as they are plainly marked ahead on the road, though one is not required to cooperate beyond stopping one's vehicle.

Which brings us to the abominations of no-refusal-blood-test or breathalyzer laws, or New York City's random stop-and-frisk policy, examples of states and municipalities disregarding established case law or trying to shove exceptions between the fine lines of the law against the spirit of the law, the inevitable creep of tyranny as a result of the Supreme Court allowing checkpoints and the like in the first place. In all likelihood, these abominations will be struck down if and when they reach the Court. In the meantime, they must be resisted. The Second District Court of Appeals did strike down New York City's stop-and-frisk, but it's still going on. (Caveat: recent case law does allow one to be briefly frisked for a weapon, typically in pedestrian Terry stops, if and only if there exists "a reasonable suspicion" that one is armed. See the problem? New York City has taken this inch all the way to China. The reasonable suspicion standard is essentially undefinable relative to the higher standard of probable cause. A cop putting his hands on you at a lower standard is pretty damn aggressive if you ask me.)

This is mostly the stuff of the political left, yet we conservatives/libertarians are supposedly the fascists.

Note the political persuasion of those misrepresenting or failing to understand the matter on this thread. Leftists. Progressives. Marxists. Statist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's the right to not incriminate oneself. That doesn't mean that the government can't ask questions or detain anyone who are suspected of criminal actions or wrongdoing.

One has the right to refuse. And the simple act of refusing can not be the reason to detain them. They have to have other reasons.

Not if there is probable cause. If someone is trying to travel through the country w/o a passport and refuses to answer questions, that can be considered probable cause. There has to be some sort of order or else the potential for chaos is astronomical.

Hogwash!

As we can all clearly see from the videos alone that is not the case within the territorial boundaries of the United States! You can't be talking about anything but an international border crossing, and of course in such instances you must provide identification and answer questions for obvious reasons. You're asking to enter somebody's "home." You must have permission first or, if returning, you must prove that you live in the respective "home" you are seeking to reenter. You are confounding two distinct and well-defined circumstances.

Shut up!

You're dense. Even if a cop allegedly has probable cause to detain and question you, he cannot demand that you give him any information under most circumstances. See above. A cop has no lawful authority to demand any information from you, unless he is placing you under arrest, and he had better damn well have a solidly lawful reason to cuff you or else. You're wrong, dead wrong. He cannot cite your refusal to answer questions or to provide ID as his probable cause in and of itself in domestic stops.

While there is a subtle wrinkle or room for maneuver in case law for cops in this regard, there's no friggin' baby talk about "order or else the potential for chaos is astronomical."

LOL!

You're making an empirical claim. Where's your case law? Cite it.

Let me help you: Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Such a statute does not implicate the subject's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, as simple disclosure of one’s name presents no reasonable danger of incrimination. But the Court clearly limited the application of this new rule by also noting that an officer may not arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. The question is, is the request for identity a commonsense inquiry or an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence?

Furthermore, a state may not make it a crime to refuse to provide identification on demand in the absence of reasonable suspicion.4 The Court has also held that a requirement that a detainee give “credible and reliable” identification information to the police upon request is too vague to be a criminal offense.5

In short, if the state has a law requiring suspects to identify themselves when asked to do so during a valid stop or detention, the U.S. Constitution will not bar arrest and prosecution for failure to do so. It is not clear what officers may do if their jurisdiction does not have a law against failing to identify oneself.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

In other words, know the law in your state or municipality, and know that the refusal to identity yourself in a Terry stop is not a crime, though it may be grounds for arrest if and only if the request for identification is directly linked to the clearly articulated reason for the stop coupled with probable cause. It cannot be demanded up front or demanded in order to conduct a fishing expedition, let alone because of any womanish concern for "order or else the potential for chaos is astronomical."

Relatively few states and municipalities allow arrest for refusing to provide identification regardless of the reason requested. I live in such a state. Most shy away from it, as this monkey business tends to get cases thrown out. Better to arrest on solid grounds directly related to real crimes where there is sufficient evidence of complicity, and smart cops know how to get the information they need without skirting the parameters of inalienable rights. Those that do allow this monkey business within the fuzzy framework recently provided by a renegade Court are mostly controlled by leftist politicians. Resist in those states or municipalities that do, as Omar did in the above.

This new rule is all part of the same kind of recent case law that has permitted intrusive interior checkpoints, all of which is the fruit of 9/11, allowing some pretty creepy practices to slip into the fabric of our Republic, like those mentioned in my post in the above.

And again:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au4_EdPwTkE]Why You Should Never Talk To Police (1) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk]Why You Should Never Talk To Police (2) - YouTube[/ame]


And again:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk]The RIGHT Way to Handle a Police Stop - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaCe6nQUX5c]The WRONG Way to Handle a Police Stop - YouTube[/ame]


And again:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5k9pywJeA]The DUMB Way to Assert Your Rights - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVx0NpYbtus]The CORRECT Way to Handle a Traffic Stop - YouTube[/ame]


And just for giggles:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE]How To Survive A Traffic Stop "I Don't Answer Questions" - YouTube[/ame]

I don’t answer questions!

I only ask them.

Note in this case, the driver chose to volunteer his license and registration before the office asked for it or stated the reason for the stop. Don’t do that. The officer might just have wanted to give him a warning. He who speaks first or makes the first move loses. Remain seated in your vehicle with the doors locked, your hands on the steering wheel in plain sight and the window up as far as you reasonably can. Do not look at the officer. Keep your eyes to the front.

Otherwise, the driver did fine.

The reason you want the window up as far as you reasonably can and your eyes to the front is to stave off any claim that the officer smells or sees anything that indicates you are intoxicated. That can get him into your vehicle.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I will only reply to points of that essay as time may or may not allow. But if you watch the video in the OP, it seemed to state that for the govt. to even ask for a passport or question the absence of such documentation to be against fifth amendment rights. At what point was the protester's fifth amendment rights violated?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I will only reply to points of that essay as time may or may not allow. But if you watch the video in the OP, it seemed to state that for the govt. to even ask for a passport or question the absence of such documentation to be against fifth amendment rights. At what point was the protester's fifth amendment rights violated?

I'm sorry, but you're still confounding an important matter, and we need to know our rights and the controlling facts thereof.

It's irresponsible, and that's why I'm especially contemptuous of Jones. He's a lying snake with a long history of misrepresenting the law all the while pretending to be our resident constitutional expert.

He's a joke, a political hack forever blathering about what he would have the law to be in accordance with his statist bootlick ideology, not what it is.

Using the term "essay" as a pejorative is just another way of evading the fact that you missed the point being made in the OP and wrongfully alleged that I don't know the law, when I obviously do.

Your reaction was thoughtless and hysterical.

As for Omar, presumably, he did not object to providing identification to travel within the territorial boundaries of the United States on a plane with other passengers. The respective airline company can demand identification as you are asking to fly on their private property. Some airline companies don't require it (one might pay in cash), but the airport authority might. Same issue, you're entering someone else's private property . . . or in some cases public property shared by others near commonly targeted assets.

I'm not advocating national suicide.

Make no mistake about it, these activists, most of them conservatives or libertarians, by the way, know the law, and what practices they're challenging as a means to expose and stop.

Omar objected to being required by the TSA to answer personal questions, in this case, regarding his citizenship status, before being allowed to board. This was not an international flight. The Supreme Court has ruled, and rightly so, that one does not have to answer personal questions put to one by private or government agencies beyond identification, including questions regarding the status of one's citizenship, to board a plane for a domestic flight.

Passport? What are you talking about? That's only needed when flying abroad.

Also, the TSA is not formally authorized by law to ID you at airport checkpoints, let alone ask intrusive questions. On the other hand, there's no law preventing TSA agents from doing so either, and of course TSA agents do not violate one's Fifth Amendment rights by merely asking questions.

No one said they did.

You imagined that.

TSA agents selectively do so as a matter of internal departmental policy. It's all a little fuzzy, as the procedure manual is "sensitive" information. The TSA is only formally authorized by law to search your person and your luggage, and make sure that you're not carrying anything that poses a threat to life or property.

The point being made is that it's not a violation of the TSA agent's constitutional rights (LOL!) for one to refuse to answer personal questions either. One does not have to answer personal questions beyond identification to board a plane on a domestic flight. Period. And it's not a crime to refuse to answer such questions. Period. Yet Omar was arrested.

That's bull.

Hence, the pertinent issue here is whether or not the TSA had a constitutionally valid reason to believe that Omar was an illegal alien, not whether or not he answered the question, and his refusal to answer that question does not, in and of itself, constitute probable cause in case law, and the TSA knows that.

Arguably, assuming the TSA agents articulated a constitutionally valid reason to believe that he was an illegal alien, the most the TSA was legally authorized to do was refuse boarding, not to arrest and conduct a fishing expedition.

By the way, Omar is an American citizen.

What are my rights at various "checkpoints"? | Flex Your Rights

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Another citizen arrested for not answering a question while flying within the continental United States. . . .

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Citizens Arrested at Airport for Refusing Border Patrol Questions - YouTube

It's not a fifth amendment issue

Only in the minds of no-nothings. So you're saying that one must answer personal questions, one must give information at airport checkpoints for domestic flights beyond providing identification or else?

I didn't know there was another amendment in the Bill of Rights that pertained to divulging the contents of one's mind.

Which one is that, by the way?
_______________________________

Contumacious, if I misunderstood you, please except my profound apology (see post #5). Sorry. I'm pretty passionate about the Bill of Rights and the systematic destruction of them.

 

[Contumacious]

Another citizen arrested for not answering a question while flying within the continental United States. . . .

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Citizens Arrested at Airport for Refusing Border Patrol Questions - YouTube

It's not a fifth amendment issue

Only in the minds of no-nothings. So you're saying that one must answer personal questions, one must give information at airport checkpoints for domestic flights beyond providing identification or else?

I didn't know there was another amendment in the Bill of Rights that pertained to divulging the contents of one's mind.

Which one is that, by the way?
_______________________________

Contumacious, if I misunderstood you, please except my profound apology (see post #5). Sorry. I'm pretty passionate about the Bill of Rights and the systematic destruction of them.

I get you drift.

I believe the SCOTUS is wrong - but unfortunately that is the law that the scumbags will follow

MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

[13] These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.


UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL., 96 S. Ct. 3074, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 07/06/1976)

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's not a fifth amendment issue

Only in the minds of no-nothings. So you're saying that one must answer personal questions, one must give information at airport checkpoints for domestic flights beyond providing identification or else?

I didn't know there was another amendment in the Bill of Rights that pertained to divulging the contents of one's mind.

Which one is that, by the way?
_______________________________

Contumacious, if I misunderstood you, please except my profound apology (see post #5). Sorry. I'm pretty passionate about the Bill of Rights and the systematic destruction of them.

I get you drift.

I believe the SCOTUS is wrong - but unfortunately that is the law that the scumbags will follow

MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

[13] These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.


UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL., 96 S. Ct. 3074, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 07/06/1976)

.

Thank you.

Yes. I'm familiar with the various cases in which the Court allowed for the establishment of interior checkpoints. I discuss the pertinent concerns in the above. Bad law, to be sure. But the Court has yet to allow that the requirement to stop and listen to personal questions or requests to "look inside your vehicle," for example, must be answered or willingly allowed respectively. Of course, folks can now be frisked for weapons based on "reasonable suspicion" against their consent, an inch stretched out to a mile, in Terry stops, essentially, mobile checkpoints. We're not far off from Nazi Germany's "Show me your papers" at the drop of a hat.

The real solutions to what ails us in this regard: (1) secure the southern border and (2) eliminate gun-free zones and all restrictions on open- and concealed-carry. We don't need more cops, more checkpoints or more impositions on our rights to defend our national sovereignty and ourselves against illegals and criminals.

Do you see the problem, the real agenda behind it all?

9/11 was the American statist's dream come true. Wave the flag and bend over.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The stuff of crap like Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975), UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL., 96 S. Ct. 3074, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 07/06/1976), especially since 9/11. . . .


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfJHx0Gj6ys]What you Didn't know about NYPD's Stop & Frisk program ! - YouTube[/ame]