On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:21:51 -0700, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
snip
>I would have supposed it unnecessary to point out to -you- Joyce
>the essential differences between a confession and a search or why
>the two are in no way constitutionally equivelent.
Ever heard of a "fishing for evidence" type of search, Bill? Or ever
been confronted by cops who challenge you for not allowing them inside
your house because they're following up on a bogus claim that a
convict is giving out your phone number as their own? Or other things
of that ilk?
I have. Because I was sufficiently savvy (and deeply embroiled in a
unionizing controversy at the time), I didn't let the cops in the
house while they were questioning me, as I knew damn good and well
that they didn't need to come inside unless they had a search warrant.
They grilled me pretty hard until I told them that I was a paralegal
and I *knew* I didn't have to let them in without a warrant--and
referred to being involved in political action and a union campaign,
which made them back off of me.
>But, consider it on a philosophical level. Before the accused
>opens his mouth, there -is- no confession.
>
>The evidence in the house exists (or does not exists) independently of
>whether consent is given for the search.
Then the cops can bloody well go get a search warrant if they think
the evidence exists. If they're worried about destruction of evidence
it ain't that bloody hard to detain someone while warrants are gained.
Having personally experienced the measures to which some cops will go
through to try and intimidate someone when engaged on a fishing
expedition for evidence, I'm all for them having to issue potential
Miranda-type warnings BEFORE searching instead of implying that
refusing consent is a confession of guilt.
Most folks are not aware that they can deny consent to search.
>How would we enforce a Miranda-type warning for consent searches?
>We can assume that the un-Mirandized accused would not have confessed
>had s/he been given the appropriate warnings. But can we assume that
>the cops would not have located the evidence without the consent to
>the search?
Bill, there's a criminal procedure process with regard to
evidence--and if a cop thinks that there is sufficient evidence that
can be found in a search, they can bloody well damn go get the search
warrant. And should do so. That's part of best practice criminal
procedure...and I took the bloody damn cop search and seizure class
umpty ump years ago, when I was getting my legal assistant
certificate. The police are not without recourse here--what I don't
like are the "fishing expedition" consent searches where it is more or
less implied that the civilian involved.
>THAT seems a bit of a stretch.
I just don't think you've seen much of criminal law or procedure, have
you?
jrw
>>>>> "Joyce" == Joyce Reynolds-Ward <jrw@no-spam> writes:
Joyce> Most folks are not aware that they can deny consent to search.
See:
<http://www.thislife.org/ra/210.ram>
The whole program is good, but in particular listen to Act 2 starting
at about 44:35. Everyone that sits on a jury should listen to this
program. All interrogations should be tape recorded.
--
Russell Senior ``shtal latta wos ba padre u prett tu nashtonfi
seniorr@no-spam mrlosh'' -- Bashgali Kafir for ``If you have
had diarrhoea many days you will surely die.''
