I aced my criminal procedure and criminal law courses in law school and defended a few dozen accused criminals in federal and state courts. To be blunt, I don't see how anyone could possibly learn the law of self-incrimination from this chart. It's way too confusing. Maybe a Tufte acolyte could redesign it.
Tada. You now know more about self-incrimination than 95% of practicing lawyers.
Separately, the lawyers at FLETC deserve real praise for their lectures. They're clear and succinct when so much legal education is muddled nonsense. Listening to their Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) lectures before my 1L Constitutional criminal procedure exam was revelatory. https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap
I'm not a lawyer nor an American, but from I can tell, it's mostly the result of a simple rule applied to many edge cases over centuries of jurisprudence, which is much more important in the US than in civil law countries.
For example, the whole Miranda rights thing came from a Supreme Court decision from 1966, not a law passed by Congress.
Yeah. To follow up (and try to explain it in a way dumb people like me will understand) the US is big on "precedence", which essentially means if a court says, "We believe this law applies this way in this specific scenario" then another court can and likely will reference that previous decision while making its own ruling on a completely separate (but somehow related) case.
As a hypothetical example, imagine a court 50 years ago said that talking to the police after invoking your 5th Amendment rights nullified your invocation of your rights.
Then, a case appears where a suspect wasn't read his Miranda rights but had invoked the 5th, except he then spoke to the police immediately after (and nullified his previous invocation). Well, what if the court decides he can re-invoke his 5th Amendment rights once he's finally read his Miranda rights? Boom. More precedence.
See how it can get complicated? It's almost kind of like when you have to write a bunch of edge-case code because weird "gotchas" keep cropping up and it's a bitch to rewrite the entire thing.
Best i can tell it is not just that it will be referenced, but that judges on the same tier of court is bound by that decision until a higher tier overrules it.
This process btw is how USA effectively got software patents.
A corporation or other applied for a patent on a production process that used a computer (and therefore software) to gain more precise control of the results than previous mechanical means.
The patent holder was sued over it, and a judge ruled in the patent holders favor.
This ruling was then used by other lawyers to press for "process" patents, where the process was described in software.
And so far no higher court has overruled the initial ruling, thus effectively USA have software patents.
Judges on a tier below a decision are bound by the higher court's ruling. This is mandatory precedent.
Judges on the same tier are not strictly bound, but in the interest of consistency (the law always seeks to be applied in the same way to the same situation), will look to the rulings of other courts on their level if no higher court has ruled. This is called persuasive precedent. The Supremes often take a case because the lower courts, (Circuit Courts of Appeals) have ruled differently on the same issue. This is called a circuit split.
Would be helpful if you cited the case, since patent law is an interesting example of a lower tier court going around the supreme court. It was pretty clear (except maybe to a lawyer) with Gottschalk v. Benson that software should not be patented, but that never stopped the federal circuit from working around that little problem... (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/supreme-court-mayo-v-pr...)
Why would civil law systems be simpler? Wouldn't the civil code have to essentially hard-code just as many edge cases? Or are those systems OK with unpredictable outcomes for such cases?
I'm not sure they are always simpler, but it's easier to get a simpler flow when you can reformulate it, instead of having to rely on the accretion of decisions on specific issues.
It's complicated because it's based on 200 years of case law. That's how American (common) law works: the law itself states a broad principle and is refined through the courts.
It's worth remembering that Americans have generally a pretty solid right to avoid self-incrimination. In the UK, for instance, your silence can be used against you in court.
And a lot of case law arises from the desire to create specific prospective incentives for the parties in different situations. But a lot also arises out of judges trying to distinguish past precedent to get an end-result they want.
I think this happens a lot more with the 4th and 5th amendments because they're so politically dicey. Like, okay, the cops shouldn't have searched that parked car without a warrant, but now you're the judge who has to exclude the gloves spattered with the victim's blood they found in the trunk.
That's not the view of the European Court of Human Rights which apparently said "the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognized international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence
It's complicated for government or law enforcement, not for the person being questioned. That's by design- the tests and hoops to jump through are the protection at work. For the questioned it's relatively simple. When questioned, decline to answer and invoke the fifth. If mirandized/in custody, request a lawyer. And then don't say anything else.
> It's complicated for government or law enforcement, not for the person being questioned.
I think it's more complex for government, but still complex for the person being questioned. For instance, the chart notes that if you are granted immunity, you cannot leave a form blank or assert your right to remain silent in a blanket fashion.
A second way things are complicated in the Hiibel case, which requires you to speak to the police to say your name.
A third way is that suspects who assert their rights are sometimes treated worse by the police. The US has a storied history of police abuse, including torture (Jon Burge, for one). Occasionally, this is caught on video, and it sometimes seems that the reaction by the police is one of anger. Infuriating the police by asserting your rights may get you some non-judicial punishment, including "contempt-of-cop", in which the police assault you and then charge you with assault via, for instance, bleeding on their uniforms (Henry Davis). In unlucky cases, you may end up dead from "excited delirium", a disease almost exclusively suffered by those in police custody but out of range of video cameras.
> It's complicated for government or law enforcement, not for the person being questioned.
I'm not sure about that. The government does this all the time - cops will know exactly where the lines are and how to get you to fuck up. They get daily practice in it.
Meanwhile, your average citizen likely doesn't know what the Fifth Amendment means beyond vague stuff they remember from high school, and there's a good chance they really don't know you have to explicitly state you're exercising it.
In context to what you're responding to I must assume, anyway, I'm pretty sure that between the time of requesting your lawyer and that lawyer appearing to advise you then you keep your mouth shut. Refuse to answer any questions until your lawyer is there to advise you. Once the lawyer is present and questioning resumes, you may be advised to invoke the fifth.
Nope, once you have requested a lawyer to be present they cannot question you until you get one (or they get one for you). Of course they never actually go get a lawyer because it's expensive and any lawyer will just instruct you not to answer any questions anyways.
How about: "My lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions".
Is that enough? Or does one need to explicitly add "I am invoking my rights under the fifth amendment"? Or explicitly state that "I want a lawyer" (which, doesn't make sense for a person who already has too many lawyers).
I'm looking for one polite, simple, clear statement to use.
RE: "I want a lawyer", you are overthinking this. The intent is clear in the context: you want a lawyer present for any questioning.
While "My lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions" could be sufficient, why leave it to chance? Just be very clear since the situation could result in life-changing consequences: "I am invoking my right to remain silent and will only answer questions with a lawyer present."
Edit: stop worrying about winning the hearts of police in a situation like this. Their interests are diametrically opposed to yours at that point in time. No need to be an asshole but you're also not going to hurt their feelings by protecting your interests; and if they seem to take issue with your statement (social pressure is another interrogation tactic, BTW), just remember that this is not a social situation so their opinion of you is not relevant. Investigators are not going to lay off you just because they think you're a swell person.
Yes, but I already have a lawyer, and I want to be polite. Police have plenty of ways to hassle you if they think you're a dick. And they'll reach that conclusion quickly and arbitrarily.
I heard a story about Larry Ellison pulled over by the police in the parking lot of Oracle. Apparently he said "Call my lawyer", handed them his lawyer's card, and walked into the building.
This is not the time for improvisation. While your version may be fine, lawyers say to use these phrases and they have many good reasons why they choose the words they use. At best, your variation will be equivalent to the recommended wordings, and you add the risk that your wording may not cover everything or a misuse of legal terms.
There is another reason to use the recommended phrase, too: it's a standard. More people will immediately understand your intent (regardless of how they respond).
> I want to be polite
While general politeness is always a good idea, the police are not on your side and you absolutely should not go out of your way to appease them. If they want to hassle you, they are going to do it anyway. In practice, they probably already made their quick-and-arbitrary conclusion before they started talking to you.
Don't take my word for it - this is the advice any decent lawyer will give you. I highly recommend watching this[1] lawyer explain the public<->police interaction, corroborated by a police officer who explains how they try to scam you into talking.
That is one of the most impressive and informative flowcharts I've seen in a long time. The 5th Amendment is a tricky thing and this cleared it up quite a bit. That said, there will always be fringe cases and people should be using their brain and not just blindly following a flowchart.
I don't know if this flowchart is intended as a practical guide so much as it is a statement on how difficult and complicated it is to actually invoke the 5th amendment.
It's not complicated in the common case. Look at the flowchart again. "If an agent of the government is questioning you, then, to each question, state that you are invoking your Fifth Amendment right and then do not answer the question".
Exactly. The flowchart is mainly about potential for deviations and corner case crap (Miranda). I mentally reduce it to this:
If question, then assert Fifth Amendment and Lawyer.
If search request, assert Fourth Amendment and Laywer where request isn't an allowed exception.
Either way, repeatedly ask if you're free to go. And be respectful in attitude for best results. Eventually, they let you go, ticket you, hold you, or charge you.
One thing it doesn't clear up for me is whether you can invoke the fifth amendment even in cases where there is not a specific crime you might incriminate yourself with. "Could your answer make it look like you committed a crime?" Considering that I have been advised that anything I say may be used against me, I would think that the answer to this question is inherently yes, even if I can't actually imagine how it might be used to incriminate me. Can I invoke the fifth simply on the principle of playing it extremely safe?
You spotted the weak link in this flowchart: "Could YOUR answer (or silence) be used to make it look like YOU committed a CRIME". There is no way to know. When cop comes and casually talks to you, he may not even consider you a suspect until later.
If you follow the watertight route, you may never talk to police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc You must have constant adversary attitude towards police asking questions in every situation.
In practice people never do that and usually nothing bad happens, but still... It's part of the good police work to be casual and make people feel that people are jerks if they don't cooperate.
> the long-short of this: Say nothing, ever, except “I am (ironically) exercising my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer”, unless your lawyer says you have to talk? (because we know cops can lie, so we can’t trust them to tell us how our rights are going to apply)
> > That’s what you say if you’re in custodial interrogation, sure. But if it’s not law enforcement asking you the questions (or providing the forms to fill out, or whatever), you have to assert that you’re taking the privilege every time they ask a question. And there are some situations where the 5th Amendment will NOT apply, and you will have to answer or face penalties.
I believe the following is what you meant, but to be clear, cops are allowed to lie. Or so I've read, and it's probably safest to assume they're both allowed and will.
You don't have the right to remain silent. You have the right not to be compelled to provide incriminating testimony. The cops have the right to ask you questions otherwise.
Um, the first line in the Miranda warning literally says you have the right to remain silent. That is for police questioning, which they can choose to do whether you answer or not. The fifth really won't come into play until sometime around being charged and questioned by a judge and/or prosecutor.
The Miranda warning is layman's explanation of the right. It does not define the right itself. For example, if the police rush to the scene and A claims that B hit her, they can ask you "did you see B hit A?" and you don't have a right to stay silent.
The "right to remain silent" that is in the Miranda warning, laymen explanation or not, is in effect when you are under arrest and face police questioning. That is the situation that I'm referring to and your example is a completely different context.
Although I would be curious as to the legalities as to a police officer having the ability to force an answer to a situation you are not directly involved with. A classic example is compelling testimony when you are a witness and your life has been threatened if you do give testimony. In those cases I know you have no right to be silent, you can be punished for doing so. But that's in a court of law and a cop asking you a question over the matter at the scene is an interesting variable. I suppose the cop could arrest you for obstruction of justice, but then the Miranda warning would then be in effect.
I'm not sure what you mean here. In that case, you could be arrested as a material witness and compelled to testify, but if there's any chance that a statement on the matter could incriminate yourself, wouldn't you have to be granted immunity first?
Because you also have the right not to remain silent. Explicitly invoking it makes it clear to all involved, and helps you out if they keep you awake for 36 hours and keep asking in hopes you get worn down.
Wonderful site. Does anyone know of other resources for the lay person to get a better grasp of the law, without becoming a laywer? Earlier in my adulthood, I would have appreciated a book explaining in very general terms what exactly lawyers do and some illustrative examples.
[ Do you think the words "well regulated" mean "no regulation is permitted"? ] ---YES---> [ Go back to school. ]
The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. A class of first graders got massacred and the country's overall reaction was "whoops!" If that doesn't move the gun control needle, not much will.
Speaking of school...SCOTUS already made it perfectly clear that the only important aspect of the 2nd Amendment's wording is the second part. In their language from DC v Heller:
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
They already admit that the right isn't unlimited:
" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
It's interesting you use that as an example, because 'well regulated', at the time in which the law was written, meant well-equipped and in proper working order.
88k alcohol "related" deaths is a suspicious number, but the other two require permits and licensure with mandated learning periods and an in-person demonstration that you can safely handle the vehicle. Gun regulations vary from state to state, and such a requirement is not present nationwide.
Alcohol, motorcycle, and vehicle regulations also vary state-to-state. There are examples of operating a motorcycle and/or vehicle without a state license is allowed. You are required to have a license to operate the vehicle on public roads, for instance. Many states have similar regulations on carrying a weapon in public, versus having a gun only in your house. These states usually have similar requirements of training and demonstration of proficiency before granting a carry license. Although I've never heard of insurance for such a thing, but it wouldn't be a bad idea.
The first question is in reference to your original statement of "find a new hobby". I'm using that to say that target shooting or hunting are hobbies. Whereas owning a gun for "safety" or "being cool" is not a hobby. And my speculation is that the latter group of gun owners is more of the problem.
Not one as such. But calguns.net has one for classifying a rifle as an assault weapon (or not) under California law. It's equally complicated (pdf warning):
People are commenting that this is a great flowchart, and I'd agree that it has some great information, but... what kind of awful flow chart has multiple outputs with the SAME value from them?
I mean, really, do
No Fifth Amendment protection against ANYONE ELSE using your words against you
and
If you say it to a friend, your boss, a cab driver, or on social media, your words are FAIR GAME
I think so. Those are separate distinctions that people fail to make in other situations – e.g. the common online claim to having a First Amendment right to say whatever you want in the comments section – and dealing with them separately is worthwhile, in my mind.
That said, the labels could have been more clear in that situation, and there were a few missing at the end of the whole thing.
If you want to learn the basics of self-incrimination law, check out these two lectures from FLETC (with transcripts!): 1. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-5th-amendment-mp3 2. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-waivers-and-invocations-...
Then, read the self-incrimination chapters in the book Examples and Explanations: Criminal Procedure (The Constitution and Police). http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanation-Procedure-Constit...
Tada. You now know more about self-incrimination than 95% of practicing lawyers.
Separately, the lawyers at FLETC deserve real praise for their lectures. They're clear and succinct when so much legal education is muddled nonsense. Listening to their Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) lectures before my 1L Constitutional criminal procedure exam was revelatory. https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap