The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Duty to inform and your right to not self incriminate

vranasaurus · January 6, 2011, 10:22 AM

If informing the police officer requires you to admit to a crime then it would violate your fifth amendment rights.

US v. Haynes is somewhat instructive because it ruled a firearms registration requirement violated the 5th amendment because it required people who failed to comply with the NFA's transfer requirements, thus committed a felony, to send the secretary of the treasury information admitting to the commission of said felony.

Let's say you are carrying in a prohibited area, are stopped by police, and the state your are in requires you to inform the police.

Are you required to inform?

Part of the courts ruling in Haynes was that the registration requirement that the defendant was charged with violating only applied to those who had failed to comply with the acts requirements reagrding transfers. Thus it only applied to those who had committed a crime and the risk of prosecution was real and appreciable.

Even though the must inform law doesn't only apply to those who have committed a crime the government still can't require you to admit to a crime. I just don't see anyway around it.

So let's say you don't inform and the officer pats you down and finds your gun.

My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it, is that you couldn't be successfully prosecuted for failing to inform but would be prosecuted for carrying in a prohibited place assuming the stop and pat down were legal. In the end you get prosecuted for the more serious charge.

If you knew you were in a prohibited place and had a gun on you I would certainly recommend that you exercise your right to remain silent. Of course I would also recommend that you not carry in prohibited places.

January 6, 2011, 10:22 AM	#42
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	If informing the police officer requires you to admit to a crime then it would violate your fifth amendment rights. US v. Haynes is somewhat instructive because it ruled a firearms registration requirement violated the 5th amendment because it required people who failed to comply with the NFA's transfer requirements, thus committed a felony, to send the secretary of the treasury information admitting to the commission of said felony. Let's say you are carrying in a prohibited area, are stopped by police, and the state your are in requires you to inform the police. Are you required to inform? Part of the courts ruling in Haynes was that the registration requirement that the defendant was charged with violating only applied to those who had failed to comply with the acts requirements reagrding transfers. Thus it only applied to those who had committed a crime and the risk of prosecution was real and appreciable. Even though the must inform law doesn't only apply to those who have committed a crime the government still can't require you to admit to a crime. I just don't see anyway around it. So let's say you don't inform and the officer pats you down and finds your gun. My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it, is that you couldn't be successfully prosecuted for failing to inform but would be prosecuted for carrying in a prohibited place assuming the stop and pat down were legal. In the end you get prosecuted for the more serious charge. If you knew you were in a prohibited place and had a gun on you I would certainly recommend that you exercise your right to remain silent. Of course I would also recommend that you not carry in prohibited places.