The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)
Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.
Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)

Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.

Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.

He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:

In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.) >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Has ANYONE who thinks this guy is being a jerk watched the don't talk to the cops videos that have been posted three times now? Anyone at all? One person?

Yes, I have and I thought it was an interesting video that I mostly agreed with. I also think it's complete overkill in this situation.
You're not being investigated for murder (which seemed to be the canonical example in the Don't Talk to Cops issue), you're being asked to submit to a breath test while driving. Now if you were at home, at work, or just out in public, I would say get stuffed. But you are literally in control of a vehicle at the time. There's no ambiguity here.

The Fifth Amendment says nothing about dash cams. I did a word search both with and without the space.

But seriously, standard equipment on a car is not covered by the Fifth Amendment, mostly because private enterprise decides these, things based on attractiveness to the buyer, not by government based on Big-Brother-ness. Auger8 didn't say they should be legally required.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^Auger8:
Imagine the world if dash cams were standard, no reckless driving, no speeding, no DUIs, 3 billion safer more aware drivers.
>> ^VoodooV:
I really want to get a dash cam for myself. Should be standard issue for crying out loud. Everyone drives nice when the cops are around but turn into Mr. Hyde when they're gone. Dash cams for everyone would put a stop to that.


...completely negating the Fifth Ammendment in the US.
Just sayin.

This is another example of why, when asked ANY question by an officer, your reply should be "ask my lawyer". NEVER answer a question from a police or law officer, under any circumstance, no matter the question (except for your name). The only thing you are required to do is identify yourself, you do not have to reply to any other question. It's your fifth amendment right. Patriots died to give you that right, don't give it away as if it's nothing.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cops, fifth amendment' to 'cops, fifth amendment, police, James Duane' - edited by radx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cops, fifth amendment' to 'cops, fifth amendment, police, attorney, law, arrest' - edited by doogle

I like these kinds of posts because it highlights the fact that attorneys speak a different language than most other people. Unfortunately, I get Scalia here.

So I agree with SDGundamX (and Scalia) that the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment simply does not apply to the scenario sketched in Stahl's interview because the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to pretrial detention. Torture isn't "punishment" in this highly legal, technical, and circumscribed sense because the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence requires some prerequisites of State/Governmental punitive measures i.e conviction.

However, I cannot respect Scalia for wholly skirting the real issue which is whether the Fifth Amendment due process protections apply to these non-citizens who are being abused and tortured in Guantanamo and in secret American prisons around the globe. He has two big cases pending on that issue that he is likely going to be on the wrong side of so I am not surprised that he resorted to wonking out and parsing the word "punishment" into silly oblivion.

My understanding, Blankfist, is the fifth amendment keeps you from testifying against at your own trial. Once you've gotten on the stand (or are in a position to speak to a judge) you've waived this right. You can't say, "I want to answer some questions, but I may decide not to answer others." The only exception is if it's someone else's trial and your guilt is brought into question.

Here's the part of the fifth that pertains to us: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

To be honest, giving the repair shop name and proof that it was there at that time should be enough. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. The police are ridiculous for expecting a citizen to get information that should NOT be available to him (personal information about those working at the repair shop) and this guy is ridiculous for making a mountain out of a mole hill. Seriously, post a cop on that corner 24/7? Get real.

LOL, don't upset the Paultards.

I do think he would be better than any other candidates, even though he is a little extreme. The real problem (aside from racism oozing out of him) is that abortions would be illegal faster than Bush invaded Iraq. No really, he wants to amend the Fifth (?) Amendment to assign a fetus personhood.

He also probably would do the same for corporations. He's a real nut when it comes to corporate personhood. He believes corporations have the Constitutional right to use deadly force to protect their property and assets. And yes, he did say that airline employees should all carry guns to protect company property (and spare me those who would try and spin that speech).

"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up"

Dude.. ask any Iraqi which was better. Hell ask any foreign policy wonk that isn't a neocon, which is better. A secular Iraq or a soon to be extremist religious state torn apart by civil unrest. Just look at northeastern India or Pakistan (who have advanced armies and police states and stable economies) how fun it is.

The statement about Saddam killing millions is false, because in all instances it was condoned by the US and weapons (biological and other) were provided by the US, so it's kind of odd to be running around saying what a monster he was without first condemning the foreign policy that created it.

And just so you are up to speed with the rest of America, people want troops out of Iraq, which the Decider refuses to even think about. The impeachment has nothing to do with ending war. The impeachment issue is about "high crimes and misdemeanors".. which entail violation of FISA, other illegal domestic spying programs, misleading Congress with known false information, (in Cheney's case) disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, violations of oath of office in particular perversion of DOJ regarding Congressional appointments, violations of PRA and using partisan email to conduct official govt business, using official govt meeting places and speakers to conduct campaign activities, such as Drug Czar (Surgeon General?) and DOJ to make visits to announce local federal program which just happen to coincide with campaign stops and speeches... Oh yeah, advising staff and WH chief legal counsel that they do not have to adhere to Congress subpoena power (it is absolute), refusing to testify to Congressional committee without stating a valid reason (like Fifth Amendment, executive privileged, Gonzo "i-cannot-remember" defense)... You can show up and say nothing, but you cannot refuse to show up. Likewise WH counsel cannot actively advise people not to adhere to subpoenas.

Trust me there is a ton more, but Munchound won't address or even hear what the rest of us have come to realize in this massive grab of power.