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

[Kobeanare]

Is that legal?

Yes.

Since when, and why? I've always been under the impression that you could either be under arrest or free to go. I've never been aware of a third option.

[Caninope]

Yes.

Since when, and why? I've always been under the impression that you could either be under arrest or free to go. I've never been aware of a third option.

Making you wait for another officer is a form of custody. You are being held for a pre-existing offense (speeding).

[Kobeanare]

Since when, and why? I've always been under the impression that you could either be under arrest or free to go. I've never been aware of a third option.

Making you wait for another officer is a form of custody. You are being held for a pre-existing offense (speeding).

If that were the case, I'd be under arrest. Sibirsky explicitly stated that I wasn't.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

186.63.25.199

Busca un enlace donde la informacion es provista en ingles. Me parece que la peticion que se te ha hecho es valida.

[Samuraikoku]

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.

186.63.25.199

Busca un enlace donde la informacion es provista en ingles. Me parece que la peticion que se te ha hecho es valida.

Sé que lo es, pero la única forma que tengo de hacer eso es traduciéndola yo mismo, porque no hay sitios de jurisprudencia argentina en inglés (ya he intentado buscar).

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Busca un enlace donde la informacion es provista en ingles. Me parece que la peticion que se te ha hecho es valida.

Sé que lo es, pero la única forma que tengo de hacer eso es traduciéndola yo mismo, porque no hay sitios de jurisprudencia argentina en inglés (ya he intentado buscar).

Busca los articulos que has citado individualmente.

[Dyakovo]

Making you wait for another officer is a form of custody. You are being held for a pre-existing offense (speeding).

If that were the case, I'd be under arrest. Sibirsky explicitly stated that I wasn't.

No, you can be detained without being arrested (just not indefinitely). In the hypothetical that Sibirsky provided you are placed in handcuffs not because you have done anything wrong, but simply to insure the safety of the officer(s).

[Kazomal]

Making you wait for another officer is a form of custody. You are being held for a pre-existing offense (speeding).

If that were the case, I'd be under arrest. Sibirsky explicitly stated that I wasn't.

You can be detained without being under arrest. If you are detained you cannot leave.

If you are being questioned by officers, and they are using intimidation to keep you there, ask if you're being detained. The cops like to exploit this grey area, so asking them will force them to either officially detain you, or let you walk off.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

For those interested in checking Argentina's Penal Code, the link here is in English: http://www.washlaw.edu/forint/america/argentin.html

[Dyakovo]

For those interested in checking Argentina's Penal Code, the link here is in English: http://www.washlaw.edu/forint/america/argentin.html

Actually that doesn't have the penal code in English...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

For those interested in checking Argentina's Penal Code, the link here is in English: http://www.washlaw.edu/forint/america/argentin.html

Actually that doesn't have the penal code in English...

Yeah, I realized that after reading further.

[Samuraikoku]

For those interested in checking Argentina's Penal Code, the link here is in English: http://www.washlaw.edu/forint/america/argentin.html

Actually that doesn't have the penal code in English...

I know what the problem is. Since it's a territorial law (not international regulations like the U.N. or organs of that kind), it's only published in the country's official language (Spanish only). I've tried looking for American Laws in Spanish myself, but the original documents are also in English.

[Sibirsky]

If that were the case, I'd be under arrest. Sibirsky explicitly stated that I wasn't.

No, you can be detained without being arrested (just not indefinitely). In the hypothetical that Sibirsky provided you are placed in handcuffs not because you have done anything wrong, but simply to insure the safety of the officer(s).

Correct. Assuming no crazy suspicions of terrorism or threats to national security, the suspect can be held for up to 24 hours, without charges filed. Rights were not violated in my hypothetical. Out on the street it's common practice to cuff those being detained.

[Samuraikoku]

There's a case of an American in Argentina in 1986, named Reginald Rayford, who gave his consent on his house being searched, and they found pot. Turns out the search was illegal because there was no warrant anyway (that alone was enough to dismiss the sentence), and even if he had given his consent, he wasn't informed of what the consequences were. He was acquitted, by the Supreme Court no less. This is why I've been saying what I've been saying, it's what I learned in law school.

http://www.abogadosradicales.com.ar/?p=343 --> RAYFORD, REGINALD R. Y OTROS S/ TENENCIA DE ESTUPEFACIENTES (ART. 6°, LEY 20771)) – CSJN – 13/05/1986

[Dyakovo]

There's a case of an American in Argentina in 1986, named Reginald Rayford, who gave his consent on his house being searched, and they found pot. Turns out the search was illegal because there was no warrant anyway (that alone was enough to dismiss the sentence), and even if he had given his consent, he wasn't informed of what the consequences were. He was acquitted, by the Supreme Court no less. This is why I've been saying what I've been saying, it's what I learned in law school.

http://www.abogadosradicales.com.ar/?p=343 --> RAYFORD, REGINALD R. Y OTROS S/ TENENCIA DE ESTUPEFACIENTES (ART. 6°, LEY 20771)) – CSJN – 13/05/1986

Any source in English? Or could one of our other Spanish speakers translate?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There's a case of an American in Argentina in 1986, named Reginald Rayford, who gave his consent on his house being searched, and they found pot. Turns out the search was illegal because there was no warrant anyway (that alone was enough to dismiss the sentence), and even if he had given his consent, he wasn't informed of what the consequences were. He was acquitted, by the Supreme Court no less. This is why I've been saying what I've been saying, it's what I learned in law school.

http://www.abogadosradicales.com.ar/?p=343 --> RAYFORD, REGINALD R. Y OTROS S/ TENENCIA DE ESTUPEFACIENTES (ART. 6°, LEY 20771)) – CSJN – 13/05/1986

Any source in English? Or could one of our other Spanish speakers translate?

I'll be more than happy too translate, if given a minute.

[Samuraikoku]

There's a case of an American in Argentina in 1986, named Reginald Rayford, who gave his consent on his house being searched, and they found pot. Turns out the search was illegal because there was no warrant anyway (that alone was enough to dismiss the sentence), and even if he had given his consent, he wasn't informed of what the consequences were. He was acquitted, by the Supreme Court no less. This is why I've been saying what I've been saying, it's what I learned in law school.

http://www.abogadosradicales.com.ar/?p=343 --> RAYFORD, REGINALD R. Y OTROS S/ TENENCIA DE ESTUPEFACIENTES (ART. 6°, LEY 20771)) – CSJN – 13/05/1986

Any source in English? Or could one of our other Spanish speakers translate?

Nope, not in English... I say it's better than a third-party Spanish speaker would translate.

The case's part about consent is this.

4) Que esta Corte tiene declarado que la ausencia de objeciones por parte del interesado respecto de la inspección domiciliaria que pretenda llevar a cabo el personal policial, no resulta por sí sola equivalente al consentimiento de aquél, en la medida en que tal actitud debe hallarse expresada de manera que no queden dudas en cuanto a la plena libertad del individuo al formular la autorización (doc. causas, “Fiorentino, Diego E.” y “Cichero, Ariel L.”, del 27 de noviembre de 1984 y 9 de abril de 1985, respectivamente -Revista LA LEY, t. 1985-A, p. 160; t. 1985-C, p. 391-). Para ello es útil el examen de las circunstancias que han rodeado al procedimiento y las particularidades en que se manifestó la falta de oposición al registro. En este sentido corresponde tener especialmente en cuenta que, en el caso, se procedió a la detención de Rayford en la vía pública y durante la madrugada, a escasos metros de su domicilio, al que penetró de inmediato la comisión policial. Pero, y ello es fundamental, esa persona era extranjera y desconocedora del idioma nacional, de modo que ante la falta de auxilio por algún intérprete, resulta extremadamente dudoso que pudiera comprender cabalmente el alcance del procedimiento que se realizaba y, en concreto, la posibilidad que tenía de oponerse a su ejecución. Cabe concluir, pues, que en estas condiciones, la mera ausencia de reparos no puede razonablemente equipararse a una autorización válida. Como consecuencia de lo expuesto debe desecharse la legitimidad de la requisa y, por ende, del secuestro que es su resultado.

[Herskerstad]

I'd have no objections with it. It's laughable not to give a hair on this case if it can solve a rape.

[Dyakovo]

Any source in English? Or could one of our other Spanish speakers translate?

I'll be more than happy too translate, if given a minute.

The clock is ticking...

[Dyakovo]

Any source in English? Or could one of our other Spanish speakers translate?

Nope, not in English... I say it's better than a third-party Spanish speaker would translate.

I didn't think there would be... That was more just a setup for asking someone to translate. Although I did run it through google translate (yes, I know it is a horrible translator - it was convenient though) and your link does seem to support what you've been saying about how Argentinian law works.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

For example, in the case Rayford, Reginald R. (May 13, 1986, Law (LL), 7-7-86] the National Supreme Court of Justice emphasized the link between the exclusionary rule and due process: “The law stipulates that any evidence obtained illegally is excluded; otherwise the right to due process enjoyed by every inhabitant pursuant tot he guarantees accorded under our National Constitution would be violated.” In the same case, the Argentine Court also rejected all evidence that stemmed from the originally vitiated evidence; in other words, it not only invalidated the “tree” but also the “poisonous fruit.”

http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/87.88eng/ ... na9635.htm

[Samuraikoku]

Nope, not in English... I say it's better than a third-party Spanish speaker would translate.

I didn't think there would be... That was more just a setup for asking someone to translate. Although I did run it through google translate (yes, I know it is a horrible translator - it was convenient though) and your link does seem to support what you've been saying about how Argentinian law works.

I understand your doubts. I never meant to irritate anyone.

[Dyakovo]

For example, in the case Rayford, Reginald R. (May 13, 1986, Law (LL), 7-7-86] the National Supreme Court of Justice emphasized the link between the exclusionary rule and due process: “The law stipulates that any evidence obtained illegally is excluded; otherwise the right to due process enjoyed by every inhabitant pursuant tot he guarantees accorded under our National Constitution would be violated.” In the same case, the Argentine Court also rejected all evidence that stemmed from the originally vitiated evidence; in other words, it not only invalidated the “tree” but also the “poisonous fruit.”

http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/87.88eng/ ... na9635.htm

too much legalese for me...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/87.88eng/ ... na9635.htm

too much legalese for me...

Same here, but it was the best excerpt, with source, I could find.

[Samuraikoku]

http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/87.88eng/ ... na9635.htm

too much legalese for me...

Exclusionary rule means that evidence obtained illegally is not to be used (therefore excluded). In the case of Reginald Rayford, even though consented, the search was illegal because he could not understand the consequences of his consent, and it was done without a warrant.

The part about the "tree" and the "poisonous fruit" it's how that theory is called: "Doctine of the fruit of the poisonous tree", the "poisonous tree" being the illegal means to obtain the evidence, and the "fruit" the actual evidence obtained.