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

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 7:10 am

Caninope wrote: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.

Yes, but why would they want to do it in the first place? Because there's a special reason he might want to check that out.

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

Yes I did, but I was talking about what could AND should be done by the State (Criminal Law). It cannot go against or beyond the written law.

For individuals like you and me (Civil or Commercial Law), however, it works in another way: We are free to do whatever we want unless it's explicitly forbidden - or punished, given your murder example.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 10:55 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:You're ticketed for driving without a license. Your car is impounded. Congratulations.

Why? It's completely legal. And even though I consented (had nothing to hide anyway), your search was illegal due to no warrant. Your whole proceedings are null and void.

BAZINGA!

Ummm, if you consent to a search no warrant is necessary...

by **Laerod** » Sat May 21, 2011 10:57 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Why? It's completely legal. And even though I consented (had nothing to hide anyway), your search was illegal due to no warrant. Your whole proceedings are null and void.

BAZINGA!

Ummm, if you consent to a search no warrant is necessary...

Samuraikoku claims to be from Argentina so their claim may possibly be correct as far as their jurisdiction goes.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 10:57 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:Yes, they can, and yes it's legal. You consented to the search. That's all it takes.

My consent doesn't matter. This is a public investigation and it must be carried out according to the law. Everything else is illegal.

Yes, it does matter. By consenting to the search you are authorizing the search, thus making it legal.

by **Caninope** » Sat May 21, 2011 10:58 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Caninope wrote: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.

Yes, but why would they want to do it in the first place? Because there's a special reason he might want to check that out.

Yes, but getting a warrant requires probable cause and a police officer doesn't have either probable cause nor the time to do that if he just sees a gangbanger walking along and suspects he has a weapon. So he might ask him for a search.

For individuals like you and me (Civil or Commercial Law), however, it works in another way: We are free to do whatever we want unless it's explicitly forbidden - or punished, given your murder example.

I don't know if it's because of your native language is Spanish, or what, but criminal law most certainly applies to individuals. Actions against the government is always civil though.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:00 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:In the US, it's legal if the driver lets you search. It's standard procedure to ask first, as most people have no idea they can just say no, and in that case he can't search without a warrant. They ask, the driver says yes, they search. If the person says no, they'll try to guilt the person into letting the cop search, rather than wait several hours for a warrant.

Too bad "COPS" isn't an example of how American policemen follow the law. LOL

Actually, it is.

Samuraikoku wrote:And even so, they should warn the driver beforehand that their consent makes the search legal.

They don't have to warn you of that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Samuraikoku wrote:Otherwise it's still against the Miranda Act (self-incrimination).

It has nothing to do with the Miranda Act at all.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:01 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Caninope wrote:Nor does Miranda apply here. Miranda applies upon arrest and/or custodial interrogation, not voluntary searches of property.

I've explained how it would work under MY law. Besides, there's a flaw on consent if not fully informed previously.

"Your law" doesn't matter. We're talking about the real world here.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:02 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Caninope wrote: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.

Then you should educate yourself.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:05 am

Laerod wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Ummm, if you consent to a search no warrant is necessary...

Samuraikoku claims to be from Argentina so their claim may possibly be correct as far as their jurisdiction goes.

A claim I doubt based on his reference to Miranda rights and their applicability in this.

by **Laerod** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:07 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Laerod wrote:Samuraikoku claims to be from Argentina so their claim may possibly be correct as far as their jurisdiction goes.

A claim I doubt based on his reference to Miranda rights and their applicability in this.

The decent English is also an indicator but overall it's not enough to get a proper conviction. I'd wait until someone bothers to check whether this is actually true for Argentinian law.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:34 am

Caninope wrote:Yes, but getting a warrant requires probable cause and a police officer doesn't have either probable cause nor the time to do that if he just sees a gangbanger walking along and suspects he has a weapon. So he might ask him for a search.

Doesn't mean the search is legal if the gangbanger was just walking.

I don't know if it's because of your native language is Spanish, or what, but criminal law most certainly applies to individuals. Actions against the government is always civil though.

You don't seem to understand what I mean. Criminal law is between the State as a public power and an individual. The state being in a position of power, it must follow the rule of law to guarantee the individual's rights. State going against or beyond the law would constitute a violation of those rights.

Dyakovo wrote:Ummm, if you consent to a search no warrant is necessary...

Not under Argentinean law.

Dyakovo wrote:"Your law" doesn't matter. We're talking about the real world here.

By "my law" I meant Argentinean real life law.

Dyakovo wrote:A claim I doubt based on his reference to Miranda rights and their applicability in this.

In law school I have studied examples of foreign law. The Miranda Act being one of those.

Laerod wrote:The decent English is also an indicator but overall it's not enough to get a proper conviction. I'd wait until someone bothers to check whether this is actually true for Argentinian law.

I can speak decent English because I have learnt how to.

Aren't you German yourself, Laerod? And as for Argentinean law, I quoted it in the previous page. Two articles from the "Código Procesal Penal de la Nación" (Code of Criminal Process).

by **Sibirsky** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:37 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Caninope wrote:Yes, but getting a warrant requires probable cause and a police officer doesn't have either probable cause nor the time to do that if he just sees a gangbanger walking along and suspects he has a weapon. So he might ask him for a search.

Doesn't mean the search is legal if the gangbanger was just walking.

If he asks and the gangbanger says yes, it is legal. End of story.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:38 am

Sibirsky wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Doesn't mean the search is legal if the gangbanger was just walking.

If he asks and the gangbanger says yes, it is legal. End of story.

I don't dispute that it works like that in America. But not where I live.

Dyakovo wrote:Then you should educate yourself.

I haven't disrespected you or anyone, please stop believing I'm a troll.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:39 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Ummm, if you consent to a search no warrant is necessary...

Not under Argentinean law. ¹

Dyakovo wrote:"Your law" doesn't matter. We're talking about the real world here.

By "my law" I meant Argentinean real life law. ²

Dyakovo wrote:A claim I doubt based on his reference to Miranda rights and their applicability in this.

In law school I have studied examples of foreign law. The Miranda Act being one of those. ³

1: Source?
2: Uh-huh. Sure.
3: Obviously false as you demonstrated that you don't know what the Miranda Rights are or what they apply to.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:40 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Then you should educate yourself.

I haven't disrespected you or anyone, please stop believing I'm a troll.

I'm not accusing you of being a troll. I'm accusing you of being ignorant and a liar.

by **Laerod** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:41 am

Samuraikoku wrote:I can speak decent English because I have learnt how to. :p Aren't you German yourself, Laerod?

Not only.

And as for Argentinean law, I quoted it in the previous page. Two articles from the "Código Procesal Penal de la Nación" (Code of Criminal Process).

Yeah, no habla espanol so no verification.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:43 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Not under Argentinean law. ¹

By "my law" I meant Argentinean real life law. ²

In law school I have studied examples of foreign law. The Miranda Act being one of those. ³

1: Source?
2: Uh-huh. Sure.
3: Obviously false as you demonstrated that you don't know what the Miranda Rights are or what they apply to.

1 and 2. Source: http://www.espaciosjuridicos.com.ar/dat ... Y25434.htm

Arts. 224 and 230.

3 - I previously explained Miranda rights would work like that here.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:43 am

Laerod wrote:Yeah, no habla espanol so no verification.

I translated it, please check.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:44 am

Dyakovo wrote:I'm not accusing you of being a troll. I'm accusing you of being ignorant and a liar.

Why? I haven't lied about anything. I've even presented proof.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:45 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
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.

No translation possible due to spelling errors.

Samuraikoku wrote:
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 arrange the inspection of a person, by means of
founded decree, whenever there are sufficient motives for presuming
that conceals in his body things related to a crime. Before
to proceed to the measurement will be able to invite her to exhibit the object of that
talk each other.

The inspections will be practised separatedly, respecting the decency of
the persons. If they will do on a woman they will be carried out for
other one.

The operation will be pointed out in record that the requisitioned one will sign; if
he will not sign it, the cause will be indicated. The denial of the person
that beech of being an object of the inspection will not prevent this one, unless
well-taken causes will come up.

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:46 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:

No translation possible due to spelling errors.
Samuraikoku wrote:

The judge will arrange the inspection of a person, by means of
founded decree, whenever there are sufficient motives for presuming
that conceals in his body things related to a crime. Before
to proceed to the measurement will be able to invite her to exhibit the object of that
talk each other.

The inspections will be practised separatedly, respecting the decency of
the persons. If they will do on a woman they will be carried out for
other one.

The operation will be pointed out in record that the requisitioned one will sign; if
he will not sign it, the cause will be indicated. The denial of the person
that beech of being an object of the inspection will not prevent this one, unless
well-taken causes will come up.

What spelling errors? Online translation won't work, you need someone who actually speaks the language. And I do.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:48 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:
1: Source?
2: Uh-huh. Sure.
3: Obviously false as you demonstrated that you don't know what the Miranda Rights are or what they apply to.

1 and 2. Source: http://www.espaciosjuridicos.com.ar/dat ... Y25434.htm

Arts. 224 and 230.

3 - I previously explained Miranda rights would work like that here.

1 and 2: You source fails.
3: And you are wrong. If they work completely different from how Miranda Rights actually work and apply then they are not Miranda Rights.

by **Dyakovo** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:49 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:I'm not accusing you of being a troll. I'm accusing you of being ignorant and a liar.

Why? I haven't lied about anything. I've even presented proof.

I don't believe you are Argentinian. Or a law student (or at least not one who has studied any part of American law).

by **Samuraikoku** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:50 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
1 and 2. Source: http://www.espaciosjuridicos.com.ar/dat ... Y25434.htm

Arts. 224 and 230.

3 - I previously explained Miranda rights would work like that here.

1 and 2: You source fails.
3: And you are wrong. If they work completely different from how Miranda Rights actually work and apply then they are not Miranda Rights.

1 and 2: Okay then, what other source would you like me to give to you?

3- If Miranda rights can work for arrests they can work for searches too. That is how it would work here.

If you don't believe I'm from Argentina, I'll give you my IP, and you can trace it.

by **Sibirsky** » Sat May 21, 2011 11:51 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:No translation possible due to spelling errors.

What spelling errors? Online translation won't work, you need someone who actually speaks the language. And I do.

In Russia it's legal to kill Argentines. Seriously they are weird like that. Look. http://government.ru/

Of course it's in Russian. Good thing I can translate.

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

Who is online