Anal Check # 3: The fifth amendment, self-incrimination

Do you believe that everyone has a protection from government possessing too much information about you? It's not just about being in the witness chair in a courtroom. How about access to your car's GPS history? Phone history? Bank statements? Unlike social media, those things are understood to be private.

Do you believe that everyone has a protection from government possessing too much information about you? It's not just about being in the witness chair in a courtroom. How about access to your car's GPS history? Phone history? Bank statements? Unlike social media, those things are understood to be private. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Did you mean the fourth amendment by chance? Things like search and seizure versus trial and punishment.

First question is: "understood" by who? Old debate trick to state something as given that isn't.

Are those things private though. Do you have a right of privacy? I didn’t see that in the constitution. Fair you can’t be forced to incriminate yourself. But that’s not nearly as broad as you might believe. Such as can you be compelled to provide DNA or voice samples (if you think the answer is no you might wanna read up). Unreasonable Search and seizure is not that broad either, hence “unreasonable”.

Your right of privacy is about as safe as the right to an abortion (which was based on the right to privacy).

Alex Jones said he invoked it 100 times when questioned.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer in real life and I do not play one on the internets.

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ye olde Stop-n-Frisk, aka random shake downs, are illegal under the Fourth amendment (above). So yes, you have a God given right to privacy according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Probable cause is the lynchpin. Skin color is NOT probable cause - theoretically, for example. Therefore, walking while being black is not technically a crime or even probable cause. But regardless of skin color, if you are fleeing down the sidewalk with a shotgun and bag of cash with bills falling out, while wearing a ski mask and the bank alarm is ringing - yeah, that's probably probable cause to tackle you and check your shit out.

Incriminating yourself is covered by the 5th amendment. The obvious dice roll is whether they already have enough information to prove someone is a worthless chunk of garbage already. When they don't, they try to get them to confess to being human garbage. You are under no obligation to prove you are. But then, you are rolling the dice against leniency in sentencing. Kind of a prison roulette game, if you will.

Are those things private though. Do you have a right of privacy? I didn’t see that in the constitution. Fair you can’t be forced to incriminate yourself. But that’s not nearly as broad as you might believe. Such as can you be compelled to provide DNA or voice samples (if you think the answer is no you might wanna read up). Unreasonable Search and seizure is not that broad either, hence “unreasonable”.

Your right of privacy is about as safe as the right to an abortion (which was based on the right to privacy). Originally Posted by NoirMan

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer in real life and I do not play one on the internets.

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ye olde Stop-n-Frisk, aka random shake downs, are illegal under the Fourth amendment (above). So yes, you have a God given right to privacy according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Probable cause is the lynchpin. Skin color is NOT probable cause - theoretically, for example. Therefore, walking while being black is not technically a crime or even probable cause. But regardless of skin color, if you are fleeing down the sidewalk with a shotgun and bag of cash with bills falling out, while wearing a ski mask and the bank alarm is ringing - yeah, that's probably probable cause to tackle you and check your shit out.

Incriminating yourself is covered by the 5th amendment. The obvious dice roll is whether they already have enough information to prove someone is a worthless chunk of garbage already. When they don't, they try to get them to confess to being human garbage. You are under no obligation to prove you are. But then, you are rolling the dice against leniency in sentencing. Kind of a prison roulette game, if you will. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

NoirMan probably is a lawyer. We can debate the constitution til the cows come home, but, practically, I’d take his sage advice about privacy seriously.

Good post btw. About your last paragraph I’d add that they can extract guilty pleas when defendants don’t have money for good legal representation.

But money can buy good legal defense. Failing that, maybe the better strategy is not be a criminal. There are plenty o jobs out there that are actually legal.

...About your last paragraph I’d add that they can extract guilty pleas when defendants don’t have money for good legal representation. Originally Posted by Tiny

Your Roger to privacy is very limited. It’s inherent in the 4th but is metered by the term unreasonable. Conservative courts chip away at that right regularly.

Your Roger to privacy is very limited. It’s inherent in the 4th but is metered by the term unreasonable. Conservative courts chip away at that right regularly. Originally Posted by NoirMan

I recall Stop-n-Frisk being all the rage in NYC back in the day - that is until it headed to court.

I recall Stop-n-Frisk being all the rage in NYC back in the day - that is until it headed to court. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You should probably read more. Stop and frisk was never held to be unconstitutional per se. What was determined to be at issue was discriminatory use. Nothing at all to do with the right to privacy.

You should probably read more. Stop and frisk was never held to be unconstitutional per se. What was determined to be at issue was discriminatory use. Nothing at all to do with the right to privacy. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Never said it was "held", just headed. Come-on man - that wreaked of 4th amendment stomping. If you are even remotely lawyerly inclined, you would understand risk mitigation. How in heck is your person secure if they can slap you up against the wall and search your person without probable cause? And that's even before the aspect of discrimination lays over it. Well... unless it was widely accepted that all cops are naturally racists fundamentally.

Not sure what you mean by "determined to be at issue". By whom? Where?

Reminds me of the Open Carry deal in Texas a few years back. The Police Unions/Associations fought hard and won the ability to be able to stop and review "the papers" of anyone with an open carry showing. After passage, those same entities lawyers highly recommend to not make use of that practice for exactly the same reason (possible, eh maybe probable, discriminatory use) to mitigate the risk of later avoiding defending data that might say 50% stopped and checked were brown-skin, 45% black and 5% white - as an example.

Call me cynical; but are you saying in both cases they were being altruistic as opposed to mitigating risk?

Did you mean the fourth amendment by chance? Things like search and seizure versus trial and punishment. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I'm talking about self-incrimination from documents that supposed to be private or used to be private. I'm not talking about money or property.

Are those things private though. Do you have a right of privacy? I didn’t see that in the constitution. Fair you can’t be forced to incriminate yourself. But that’s not nearly as broad as you might believe. Such as can you be compelled to provide DNA or voice samples (if you think the answer is no you might wanna read up). Unreasonable Search and seizure is not that broad either, hence “unreasonable”.

Your right of privacy is about as safe as the right to an abortion (which was based on the right to privacy). Originally Posted by NoirMan

So, I don't have to tell you that the abortion is based on the found right to privacy. Since the Supreme Court found it though, it is on the table as an excuse or pretext.

I'm talking about self-incrimination from documents that supposed to be private or used to be private. I'm not talking about money or property. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Are not document loosely called papers?