Police Question Videographer, Sorry I do not answer questions

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by pnac

Sort of contradicts Miranda doesn't it?

Sure looks like you haven't bothered to read Salinas:

1. Salinas, slip op. at 2:

   ...Petitioner’s interview with the police lasted approximately one hour. All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966)...

2. Salinas, slip op. at 3-4:

   ...The privilege against self-incrimination “is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony.” Garner v. United States, 424 U. S. 648, 658, n. 11 (1976). To prevent the privilege from shielding information not properly within its scope, we have long held that a witness who “‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’” at the time he relies on it. Murphy, 465 U. S., at 427 (quoting Monia, 317 U. S., at 427)....

3. Salinas, slip op at 4-5:

   ....We have previously recognized two exceptions to the requirement that witnesses invoke the privilege, but neither applies here. First, we held in Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 613–615 (1965), that a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his own trial....
   
   Second, we have held that a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. Thus, in Miranda, we said that a suspect who is subjected to the “inherently compelling pressures” of an unwarned custodial interrogation need not invoke the privilege. 384 U. S., at 467–468, and n. 37. Due to the uniquely coercive nature of custodial interrogation, a suspect in custody cannot be said to have voluntarily forgone the privilege“unless [he] fails to claim [it] after being suitably warned.” ...

4. In other words, Miranda applies only during a custodial interrogation.

Originally Posted by jason75979

Sounds as if they were implying he was admitting guilt through his silence? How could a suggestion become hard evidence?...

Silence is a form of conduct, and it's long been the fact that conduct can be evidence and that a jury may draw inferences from conduct.

• U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:

  ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....

• State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:

  ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'
  
  McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.
  
  We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....

• State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:

  ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.
  
  Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...

• Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:

  ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:
  
  "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt
  
  "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...
  
  See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....

[jason75979]

"Silence is a form of conduct, and it's long been the fact that conduct can be evidence and that a jury may draw inferences from conduct."

Well, with that, you might as well delete my previous post as I'm not particularly up to speed on legal precedence and such.
Its still strange to me how an implication can lead to a conviction. The definition in itself just negates "a shadow of a doubt" to me. It is an implied fact.
Maybe someone more in tune to the justice system could explain it further?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jason75979

...Its still strange to me how an implication can lead to a conviction. The definition in itself just negates "a shadow of a doubt" to me....

The standard of proof for conviction in a trial on a criminal matter is not "a shadow of a doubt." It's "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[jason75979]

Well, I consider the 2 synonymous Frank.
If something is not reasonable, then its beyond. Beyond reasonable would suggest to me no doubt whatsoever "in reason".
" beyond a shadow of a doubt" to me means nothing left hanging to cast an ugly feeling of doubt. In other words, no question what so ever.

[44 AMP]

one could make the argument that there is a "shadow of a doubt" that exists beyond the standard of "reasonable".

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" would be a higher standard than what the law requires for conviction.

or so I see it, but I have my doubts...

[jason75979]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

one could make the argument that there is a "shadow of a doubt" that exists beyond the standard of "reasonable".

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" would be a higher standard than what the law requires for conviction.

or so I see it, but I have my doubts...

I've always heard it as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" which is the version I've based my discussion with Frank off of.
But, the fact that I don't brain to good sometimes, shouldn't be left out.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jason75979

Well, I consider the 2 synonymous Frank....

The law does not, and that will be explained by a judge when he instructs a jury in a criminal case.

But this discussion is now going off topic, so it ends now. So Jason, you will need to continue your legal education in another way.

[Uncle Buck]

How many criminals post videos of themselves committing crimes? (You Tube has some pretty funny ones of these dumb criminals.)

How many of these "prank" videos come real close to crossing the line in to being something illegal? Quite a few.

Now filming a police officer: I think it should be 100% legal to film anyone in a public place. But I also think that if that film can be used to solve a crime or prove someones innocence, it should be used that way.

So I am filming a police officer at a traffic stop. Later on I read in the newspaper that the police officer has been accused of pulling the guy in the vehicle out of the car and beating him with a flashlight. Shouldn't the police have a right to request that tape? It would be much easier for him/her to request the tape if they knew my name.

Also, as for the police to be able to "find" my name, people do not realize how much of a footprint they leave behind when they use the internet. I have searched for and found out a lot of information by looking for user names, first names and the subject, subjects and locations, contact information for a phone number someone has carelessly left. There are other ways also. I may talk to someone and when they leave talk to someone else and say something like "What was his name? I can never remember a name." You would be surprised, or maybe not, how many people want to volunteer information about someone else.

Maybe my previous job as a cop has skewed me towards trying to help and looking at the positive side of things instead of looking for the worst in it.


Luckily I have very few contacts with the police and the ones I do have are usually very positive. I have even sent letters to police departments and sheriff departments letting those in charge know that I appreciated the officers professionalism.

[Madcap_Magician]

It always amazes me how many people who 'know their rights'... don't. And how many people who know their rights, both existent and nonexistent, are hell-bent on exercising them irresponsibly.