Good police work or invasion of privacy... Or?

[Sibirsky]

No there's not. The fact that he's asking implies you can answer no.

I'd like to know the consequences of saying "yes" and "no" before I make a decision.

The consequences of saying yes are as clear as they could be, are they not? It's ok to ask, what happens if you say no. He'll tell you that he won't search. Depending on how bad he wants to look, he may try to convince you, or just drop the issue all together. If convincing you doesn't work, and he thinks you have drugs, he may bring a dog to sniff the outside of your car. Or he can detain you while waiting for a warrant.

[Samuraikoku]

I'd like to know the consequences of saying "yes" and "no" before I make a decision.

The consequences of saying yes are as clear as they could be, are they not? It's ok to ask, what happens if you say no. He'll tell you that he won't search. Depending on how bad he wants to look, he may try to convince you, or just drop the issue all together. If convincing you doesn't work, and he thinks you have drugs, he may bring a dog to sniff the outside of your car. Or he can detain you while waiting for a warrant.

I'd ask him "what happens if I say yes?", he'd have to tell me (there's the trick, if he says "then the search would be legal" I would have enough reason to say no, and then I'd decide).

None of what happens afterwards is of any consequence to me, the search being legal or illegal. If it's legal, he'll find nothing of interest. If it's illegal, he wasted his time.

[Caninope]

The consequences of saying yes are as clear as they could be, are they not? It's ok to ask, what happens if you say no. He'll tell you that he won't search. Depending on how bad he wants to look, he may try to convince you, or just drop the issue all together. If convincing you doesn't work, and he thinks you have drugs, he may bring a dog to sniff the outside of your car. Or he can detain you while waiting for a warrant.

I'd ask him "what happens if I say yes?", he'd have to tell me (there's the trick, if he says "then the search would be legal" I would have enough reason to say no, and then I'd decide).

None of what happens afterwards is of any consequence to me, the search being legal or illegal. If it's legal, he'll find nothing of interest. If it's illegal, he wasted his time.

If you say yes at all, it's legal.

Edit: Providing there is no coercion going on.

[Samuraikoku]

We established that in America, yes. But not around here.

Edit: While not coercion, hiding information would also have an effect on the subject's will. Thus making the search illegal.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I'd ask him "what happens if I say yes?", he'd have to tell me (there's the trick, if he says "then the search would be legal" I would have enough reason to say no, and then I'd decide).

None of what happens afterwards is of any consequence to me, the search being legal or illegal. If it's legal, he'll find nothing of interest. If it's illegal, he wasted his time.

If you say yes at all, it's legal.

Edit: Providing there is no coercion going on.

Yeah. If they strap you to a table naked and start pouring vaseline on jumper cables before you say yes, you have a case for an illegal search.

[Caninope]

We established that in America, yes. But not around here.

Edit: While not coercion, hiding information would also have an effect on the subject's will. Thus making the search illegal.

Can I get a source for Argentina, beyond your word?

And he's not hiding information any more than you're not asking for it.

[Samuraikoku]

We established that in America, yes. But not around here.

Edit: While not coercion, hiding information would also have an effect on the subject's will. Thus making the search illegal.

Can I get a source for Argentina, beyond your word?

And he's not hiding information any more than you're not asking for it.

Do you understand Spanish?

Art. 224.- Si hubiere motivos para presumir que en determinado
lugar existen cosas pertinentes al delito, o que allí puede
efectuarse la detención del imputado o de alguna persona evadida o
sospechada de criminalidad, el juez ordenará, por auto fundado, el
registro de ese lugar.

El juez podrá disponer de la fuerza pública y proceder
personalmente o delegar la diligencia en funcionarios de la
policía. En este caso la orden será escrita y contendrá el lugar,
día y hora en que la medida deberá efectuarse y el nombre del
comisionado, que labrará un acta conforme a lo dispuesto en los
artículos 138 y 139.

If there were any motives to presume that in a determined place exist objects relevant to the crime, or that there the accused might be detained, or another person suspected, the judge will order, by a sustained resolution, the search of that place.

The judge may use the public force and proceed personally or delegate the proceedings in police officers. In this case the warrant will be
written and will contain the place, day and time in which the measure should be taken, and the name of the commisioner, which will write a not in the terms of articles 138 and 139.

Art. 230.- El juez ordenará la requisa de una persona, mediante
decreto fundado, siempre que haya motivos suficientes para presumir
que oculta en su cuerpo cosas relacionadas con un delito. Antes de
proceder a la medida podrá invitársela a exhibir el objeto de que
se trate.

Las requisas se practicarán separadamente, respetando el pudor de
las personas. Si se hicieren sobre una mujer serán efectuadas por
otra.

La operación se hará constar en acta que firmará el requisado; si
no la suscribiere, se indicará la causa. La negativa de la persona
que haya de ser objeto de la requisa no obstará a ésta, salvo que
mediaren causas justificadas.

The judge will order the search of a person, by sustained resolution, whether there is enough reason to presume that they may be hiding objects related to a crime. Before proceeding, they may be invited to exhibit the required object.

Searches shall be performed separately, respecting people's intimacy. If they were to be performed upon a woman, they shall be performed by another.

The operation will be noted and signed by the searched; if not suscribed, the cause shall be indicated. Denial of the person to be searched will not prevent it, except for justified reasons.

Doesn't say anything about consent, what I highlighted in bold means the judge will order the searches over places and people.

But take a look at this final piece of article 230:

La negativa de la persona que haya de ser objeto de la requisa no obstará a ésta, salvo que
mediaren causas justificadas.

It says that denial doesn't prevent the search from being made, except for justified reasons. Clearly inconstitutional.

[Caninope]

*snip*

Nothing there requires that someone get a warrant on searching something if a person has allowed it.

[Samuraikoku]

*snip*

Nothing there requires that someone get a warrant on searching something if a person has allowed it.

It would not be following the law. Unacceptable in criminal proceedings. This is PUBLIC CRIMINAL LAW, not PRIVATE CIVIL LAW. The State must observe its own written rules - of public knowledge and valid via a due legislation process - as a public power independently of the will of the particular person.

Everything in public law that is unwritten is forbidden.

[Caninope]

Nothing there requires that someone get a warrant on searching something if a person has allowed it.

It would not be following the law. Unacceptable in criminal proceedings. This is PUBLIC CRIMINAL LAW, not PRIVATE CIVIL LAW. The State must observe its own written rules - of public knowledge and valid via a due legislation process - as a public power independently of the will of the particular person.

Everything in public law that is unwritten is forbidden.

Wrong. That's like saying that because something's not explicitly allowed, an individual can't do it.

Going by the definition, your law doesn't tell me that I can not murder, but it does tell me that murder is illegal. Thus I face a dilemma. Should I follow the law which makes murder illegal, or should I murder (because I the law didn't tell me to abstain from murder, making abstaining from murder illegal)?

[Samuraikoku]

Wrong. That's like saying that because something's not explicitly allowed, an individual can't do it.

It works like that in CIVIL LAW (where the parties are equals), not in CRIMINAL LAW (where the State acts in a position of power, and thus it must abide the rule of law).

Going by the definition, your law doesn't tell me that I can not murder, but it does tell me that murder is illegal. Thus I face a dilemma. Should I follow the law which makes murder illegal, or should I murder (because I the law didn't tell me to abstain from murder, making abstaining from murder illegal)?

Do as you like, but be advised: If you commit murder (illegal according to our criminal law) you will be punished according to the law. That's all there is to it.

I have to go to bed now. We'll continue this tomorrow.

[Caninope]

Wrong. That's like saying that because something's not explicitly allowed, an individual can't do it.

It works like that in CIVIL LAW (where the parties are equals), not in CRIMINAL LAW (where the State acts in a position of power).

Wrong. If could provide with the relevant Argentinean case law though, I will be happy to admit my mistake.

Going by the definition, your law doesn't tell me that I can not murder, but it does tell me that murder is illegal. Thus I face a dilemma. Should I follow the law which makes murder illegal, or should I murder (because I the law didn't tell me to abstain from murder, making abstaining from murder illegal)?

If you commit murder (illegal according to our criminal law) you will be punished according to the law. That's all there is to it.

But your legal system didn't I say I could abstain from murder, therefore abstaining from murder is illegal.

[Samuraikoku]

Wrong. If could provide with the relevant Argentinean case law though, I will be happy to admit my mistake.

I've been looking at jurisprudence, but there's nothing about consented searches, since police officers do it under safety of a warrant.

But your legal system didn't I say I could abstain from murder, therefore abstaining from murder is illegal.

Abstaining from murder is not illegal. Committing murder is. Says so in the Penal Code (Art. 79). And if committing murder is illegal, abstaining then isn't (there's no rational way around opposites. When one is right, the other one isn't. It's just that simple.)

[Caninope]

Wrong. If could provide with the relevant Argentinean case law though, I will be happy to admit my mistake.

I've been looking at jurisprudence, but there's nothing about consented searches, since police officers do it under safety of a warrant.

Are you telling me that there's been absolutely no case of that?

But your legal system didn't I say I could abstain from murder, therefore abstaining from murder is illegal.

Abstaining from murder is not illegal. Committing murder is. Says so in the Penal Code (Art. 79).

But you told me that the only things that are legal are the things explicitly laid out as legal. Abstaining from murder is not explicitly laid out as legal, I would presume. I'm not actually arguing it because I believe it, but to prove a point about the absurdity of such a claim.

[Samuraikoku]

I've been looking at jurisprudence, but there's nothing about consented searches, since police officers do it under safety of a warrant

Are you telling me that there's been absolutely no case of that?

It sounds improbable at best. Still looking for it, and reading doctrine about searches beyond the law. Who would AGREE to a search without a warrant? I would, but what's the point? If there's no warrant the search must be conducted in a special case (eg: Flagrant crime.)

But you told me that the only things that are legal are the things explicitly laid out as legal. Abstaining from murder is not explicitly laid out as legal, I would presume. I'm not actually arguing it because I believe it, but to prove a point about the absurdity of such a claim.

If committing murder is illegal, abstaining from it must be legal. There's no sensible way both can be illegal or legal at the same time.

[Caninope]

It sounds improbable at best. Still looking for it, and reading doctrine about searches beyond the law. Who would AGREE to a search without a warrant? I would, but what's the point? If there's no warrant the search must be conducted in a special case (eg: Flagrant crime.)

No, it's not too uncommon in the US. An officer might ask you if you'll pull out your pants pockets or pull up your shirt if he think you are hiding a weapon. If you aren't, then you can quickly consent to the search and get it over with.

If committing murder is illegal, abstaining from it must be legal. There's no sensible way both can be illegal or legal at the same time.

But that's not what you said earlier. You said anything that's not explicitly legal is illegal.

[MuhOre]

Oye, this is silly. A person commits rape and murder and without this "invasion of privacy" would otherwise still be on the streets. If anything this should set a precedent for solving cases.

[Great Nepal]

And?
Answer: Dont cheat on your wife.

Actually, no. The answer is to not have such a database in the first place.

Like?

It assumes that every citizen is going to be guilty of some crime at some point which contradicts the basics of Western law. It's also open to all sorts of abuse and would be a valuable resource should guarantees of protection be done away with. In fact, one can consider a central database of all DNA profiles the doing away of one key guarantee of freedom from surveillance.

1. Why? It makes crime solving and other things awful lot easier. Dont do wrong things, you dont have anything to worry about.
2. No actually, if you are not going to commit crime - what is the problem with give a stand of hair?

[Laerod]

Actually, no. The answer is to not have such a database in the first place.

It assumes that every citizen is going to be guilty of some crime at some point which contradicts the basics of Western law. It's also open to all sorts of abuse and would be a valuable resource should guarantees of protection be done away with. In fact, one can consider a central database of all DNA profiles the doing away of one key guarantee of freedom from surveillance.

1. Why? It makes crime solving and other things awful lot easier. Dont do wrong things, you dont have anything to worry about.
2. No actually, if you are not going to commit crime - what is the problem with give a stand of hair?

Citizens have the right to do wrong things, just not illegal things. Having a system of informants makes crime solving a lot easier. Sticking you in jail preemptively does as well. Are you going to go to jail to prevent crime?

[Vecherd]

This is extreme invasion of privacy. The police should have no right to do such a thing as it will be used against tons of innocent people.

[Georgism]

Both.

[Great Nepal]

1. Why? It makes crime solving and other things awful lot easier. Dont do wrong things, you dont have anything to worry about.
2. No actually, if you are not going to commit crime - what is the problem with give a stand of hair?

Citizens have the right to do wrong things, just not illegal things. Having a system of informants makes crime solving a lot easier. Sticking you in jail preemptively does as well. Are you going to go to jail to prevent crime?

Since when is giving a stand of hair same as going to prison for life?

[Laerod]

Citizens have the right to do wrong things, just not illegal things. Having a system of informants makes crime solving a lot easier. Sticking you in jail preemptively does as well. Are you going to go to jail to prevent crime?

Since when is giving a stand of hair same as going to prison for life?

It's not. Giving a strand of hair is nowhere near as effective at preventing crime as locking everyone up preemptively is. And that's your justification for invading people's privacy. Are you suddenly getting soft on crime?

[Kazomal]

1. Dont do wrong things, you dont have anything to worry about.
2. No actually, if you are not going to commit crime - what is the problem with give a stand of hair?

1. That's not true at all.

2. Why should I have to give my hair? It's mine, the government has no right to it, the ghoulish parasites. I don't need to justify my rights any my bodily integrity.

[Dagnia]

Good police work, assuming there was a sound constitutional basis court orders. I would still not volunteer my own samples, since I don't trust that my DNA will not be in some system forever and would challenge the court orders in any way I could, regardless of how innocent I was. It's an issue of principle for me.