I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument either way here. I guess as an attorney I just have somewhat of a pet peeve about the term "Miranda rights." I prefer "Miranda warnings" because as I said, the actual case didn't create any rights. But it's a subtle distinction that is really of no consequence. You can invoke your right to remain silent in circumstances beyond where the warnings are required, but your description is basically right.
quote:Originally posted by lawguy07:
I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument either way here. I guess as an attorney I just have somewhat of a pet peeve about the term "Miranda rights." I prefer "Miranda warnings" because as I said, the actual case didn't create any rights. But it's a subtle distinction that is really of no consequence. You can invoke your right to remain silent in circumstances beyond where the warnings are required, but your description is basically right.
I really think mysterymeat is lost on this one, not just arguing for arguements sake. I dont think he realizes that 'the right to remain silent' is directly from the 5th amendment, which is exaclty where 'taking the fifth' comes from. This all came up over Tigers refusal to answer questions, if I remember correctly.
I forgot what the topic was.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
What constitutional right allows you to refuse questioning after a possible crime?
Its been all over the board, but this is where the 5th came up. Mysterymeat has gone on and on about how the 5th amendment only applies to trials and not the above situation....
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:
"Pleading the 5th" is nothing more than a person exercising their rights against self incrimination. It begins with Miranda which gets its legal basis from the 5th Amendment. To say they are different is to say a father is not related to his biological son.
Ahh...nice try. Yes, they are related. But by no means are the same.
BTWmekirt...you are making yourself look like a fool.
My "nice try" was better than your best effort.
Understand the difference between a Right and a Warning now?
quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:
"Pleading the 5th" is nothing more than a person exercising their rights against self incrimination. It begins with Miranda which gets its legal basis from the 5th Amendment. To say they are different is to say a father is not related to his biological son.
Ahh...nice try. Yes, they are related. But by no means are the same.
BTWmekirt...you are making yourself look like a fool.
My "nice try" was better than your best effort.
Understand the difference between a Right and a Warning now?
Which one applied to Woods?
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:
"Pleading the 5th" is nothing more than a person exercising their rights against self incrimination. It begins with Miranda which gets its legal basis from the 5th Amendment. To say they are different is to say a father is not related to his biological son.
Ahh...nice try. Yes, they are related. But by no means are the same.
BTWmekirt...you are making yourself look like a fool.
My "nice try" was better than your best effort.
Understand the difference between a Right and a Warning now?
Which one applied to Woods?
So you STILL don't understand. Comprehension problems, as usual.
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Which one applied to Woods?
So you STILL don't understand. Comprehension problems, as usual.
Dont they make a pill for that?
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by budsfarm:
"Pleading the 5th" is nothing more than a person exercising their rights against self incrimination. It begins with Miranda which gets its legal basis from the 5th Amendment. To say they are different is to say a father is not related to his biological son.
Ahh...nice try. Yes, they are related. But by no means are the same.
BTWmekirt...you are making yourself look like a fool.
My "nice try" was better than your best effort.
Understand the difference between a Right and a Warning now?
Which one applied to Woods?
All of them. Except your assertion that the 5th Amendment only applies in court.
According to reports, Woods did not talk LE maintaining his 5th Amendment “rights” regarding self incrimination in the traffic collision. Whether his silence was a result of an LE Miranda warning, on advice of his attorney, or his personal choice, we do not know.
LE conducted an investigation and charged him. It was not reported whether or not he received his Miranda “warnings” because as SK and LG pointed out, if no questioning, no Miranda advisory necessary.
Woods has yet to appear in court.
quote:Originally posted by mekirk2:quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Which one applied to Woods?
So you STILL don't understand. Comprehension problems, as usual.
Dont they make a pill for that?
Yes, Strychnine. Any chance he would think it was a Tylenol?
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
reread what I said. When a person is arrested they have to be read miranda before questioning.
As in the case with Woods, (which BTW is what we are talking about) No arrest= no miranda, nor fifth amendment rights are required, or being violated.
It is only whemn arrested miranda comes into effect.
It is only during criminal trial that one can plead the fifth.
You failed miserably at trying to save your partner in blue!
Something needs to be clarified here also. When you are arrested by a Police Officer, that officer is only required to read you your Miranda Warning if: you are being questioned about a crime you may have committed. If they don't question you, they don't have to read you the Miranda Warning!!!!
I can't tell you how many people I have arrested over the last 15 years that have screamed "Judge they didn't read me my rights" "You have to read me my rights!!!!!!"
But generally people have been watching too much TV and think that is the way it is. YOU NEED TO WATCH MORE LAW AND ORDER less of the other crap on TV! lol
Also, another thing I have noticed on here is it is very obvious the difference in the people on here who have never enforced or studied law and the ones that have the professional knowledge of first hand experience at it.
I think I will jump on the next medical or religious forum topic and try to prove everybody wrong! Especially since I have no idea what I am talking about! OMG!
I think I will jump on the next medical or religious forum topic and try to prove everybody wrong! Especially since I have no idea what I am talking about! OMG!
....Good point!quote:Originally posted by fhantom309_35660:
Also, another thing I have noticed on here is it is very obvious the difference in the people on here who have never enforced or studied law and the ones that have the professional knowledge of first hand experience at it.
I think I will jump on the next medical or religious forum topic and try to prove everybody wrong! Especially since I have no idea what I am talking about! OMG!
http://www.golf.com/golf/tours...8136,1946074,00.html
Well its official. Woods got away with DUI. Logan probably will too.
Well its official. Woods got away with DUI. Logan probably will too.
DUI drivers typically drive under the influence an average of between 75 and 100 times before being caught. Even with the best of officers on the case, sometimes the evidence is lacking, as was cited by the Assistant State Attorney in the Tiger Woods case.
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
DUI drivers typically drive under the influence an average of between 75 and 100 times before being caught. Even with the best of officers on the case, sometimes the evidence is lacking, as was cited by the Assistant State Attorney in the Tiger Woods case.
Actually the 'evidence' was not allowed to be obtained by blood test as requested. The prosecutor would not allow it.
Is it NORMAL for a prosecutor to do this when an officer suspects DUI?
I didn't think so.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
DUI drivers typically drive under the influence an average of between 75 and 100 times before being caught. Even with the best of officers on the case, sometimes the evidence is lacking, as was cited by the Assistant State Attorney in the Tiger Woods case.
Actually the 'evidence' was not allowed to be obtained by blood test as requested. The prosecutor would not allow it.
Is it NORMAL for a prosecutor to do this when an officer suspects DUI?
I didn't think so.
No, actually, the evidence that would have allowed a search warrant was lacking. Can you say "supported by probable cause"? I didn't think so.
Yes, it's normal for a prosecutor to do this when there is insufficient probable cause.
Hearsay concerning alcohol consumption and/or drug ingestion did not rise to the level of probable cause necessary to support a search warrant.
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause.
I give credit to the cops here. They did their part. Wonder how much the prosecutor will get?
I give credit to the cops here. They did their part. Wonder how much the prosecutor will get?
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause.
I give credit to the cops here. They did their part. Wonder how much the prosecutor will get?
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause of crash...not DUI. Not everybody who crashes into a fire hydrant is drunk.
Probable cause for a blood test would include a statement of a smell of alcoholic beverages on the breath, open alcohol containers in the vehicle, bloodshot and/or glazed eyes, slurred speech, soiled clothing, positive HGN, and quite a few other indicators.
All of these were lacking in the Trooper's request for a search warrant.
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause.
I give credit to the cops here. They did their part. Wonder how much the prosecutor will get?
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause of crash...not DUI. Not everybody who crashes into a fire hydrant is drunk.
Probable cause for a blood test would include a statement of a smell of alcoholic beverages on the breath, open alcohol containers in the vehicle, bloodshot and/or glazed eyes, slurred speech, soiled clothing, positive HGN, and quite a few other indicators.
All of these were lacking in the Trooper's request for a search warrant.
So the cop knew the information he was giving would not pass muster?
Maybe I gave the cop credit too quickly.
quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause.
I give credit to the cops here. They did their part. Wonder how much the prosecutor will get?
Witness, car crash on public road causing damage to public property. = probable cause of crash...not DUI. Not everybody who crashes into a fire hydrant is drunk.
Probable cause for a blood test would include a statement of a smell of alcoholic beverages on the breath, open alcohol containers in the vehicle, bloodshot and/or glazed eyes, slurred speech, soiled clothing, positive HGN, and quite a few other indicators.
All of these were lacking in the Trooper's request for a search warrant.
So the cop knew the information he was giving would not pass muster?
Maybe I gave the cop credit too quickly.
I can't say whether he knew or not. I suspect he did. I also suspect he thought it might make a minor celebrity (his 15 minutes of fame) if he was the trooper who made the DUI case on Tiger.