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

[Dyakovo]

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.

Unless someone* comes along with a translation that says no that's not how it works, I believe you now that, that is indeed how it works in Argentina.

*And by someone, I don't mean just anyone, I mean someone that I know speaks Spanish fluently and who I trust. So, pretty much just Nana-chan, Buffy, or Aelosia...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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

Unless someone* comes along with a translation that says no that's not how it works, I believe you now that, that is indeed how it works in Argentina.

*And by someone, I don't mean just anyone, I mean someone that I know speaks Spanish fluently and who I trust. So, pretty much just Nana-chan, Buffy, or Aelosia...

By far, what he is saying is how it works in Argentina.

[Dyakovo]

too much legalese for me...

Exclusionary rule means that evidence obtained illegally is not to be used (therefore excluded).

I got that. I meant in the link itself, not the excerpt Nana-chan provided. Nana-chan's excerpt I understood just fine.

[Caninope]

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 held in custody without being under arrest.

[Samuraikoku]

In your favor I could say that if the person to be searched were informed of the consequences, then the consent would be legal and not "vitiated" or "flawed". (Volenti non fit injuria, in Latin)

Provided, of course, that special circumstances apply for the non-existence of a warrant.

[Dyakovo]

Unless someone* comes along with a translation that says no that's not how it works, I believe you now that, that is indeed how it works in Argentina.

*And by someone, I don't mean just anyone, I mean someone that I know speaks Spanish fluently and who I trust. So, pretty much just Nana-chan, Buffy, or Aelosia...

By far, what he is saying is how it works in Argentina.

Seems an excessive limitation to police powers to me... But that might just be because I lack the language skills to really examine it...
*shrugs*
What's important is whether or not it works, and it seems to.

[Samuraikoku]

Seems an excessive limitation to police powers to me... But that might just be because I lack the language skills to really examine it...

Oh, it IS excessive. Policemen can't really do anything here. That's why our insecurity is rampant.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

By far, what he is saying is how it works in Argentina.

Seems an excessive limitation to police powers to me... But that might just be because I lack the language skills to really examine it...
*shrugs*
What's important is whether or not it works, and it seems to.

I think this harkens, IMO, to Argentina's past. They had a few oppressive governments in the past, and perhaps they just don't want to give the police too much power over the citizenry. However, limiting the authorities so much is not always good.

[Caninope]

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

I had to use Google Translate, and it may be wrong, but it said "in the absence of objection."

[Samuraikoku]

I think this harkens, IMO, to Argentina's past. They had a few oppressive governments in the past, and perhaps they just don't want to give the police too much power over the citizenry. However, limiting the authorities so much is not always good.

Indeed. There's no balance for us, either we go to oppressive dictatorships (like the military dictatorship in 1976, the latest and cruelest one), or to something akin to total anarchy, like we seem to be now.

[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

I had to use Google Translate, and it may be wrong, but it said "in the absence of objection."

Nana-chan read through it and says that that source does indeed support what Reddotonwhitebackground has been saying about how it works in Argentina.

[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

I had to use Google Translate, and it may be wrong, but it said "in the absence of objection."

Absence of objection = consent. The guy did say yes, even though he didn't know the consequences (and still was no warrant). Had he known it, he would have said no.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think this harkens, IMO, to Argentina's past. They had a few oppressive governments in the past, and perhaps they just don't want to give the police too much power over the citizenry. However, limiting the authorities so much is not always good.

Indeed. There's no balance for us, either we go to oppressive dictatorships (like the military dictatorship in 1976, the latest and cruelest one), or to something akin to total anarchy, like we seem to be now.

Which is sad, really. Without balance, well, you get my meaning.

[Samuraikoku]

Nana-chan read through it and says that that source does indeed support what Reddotonwhitebackground has been saying about how it works in Argentina.

Are you Ifreann? (Sexnation?) I apologized for that one. LOL

Which is sad, really. Without balance, well, you get my meaning.

Yes, it IS sad. The problem resides within society itself.

[Dyakovo]

Nana-chan read through it and says that that source does indeed support what Reddotonwhitebackground has been saying about how it works in Argentina.

Are you Ifreann? (Sexnation?) I apologized for that one. LOL

No, me and Iffy are 2 different people... I just still think its funny.

[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

I had to use Google Translate, and it may be wrong, but it said "in the absence of objection."

By that, what is meant is if the person isn't oppoosed to the search.

In the case of Rayford, his rights were infringed upon because first) there was no warrant, and second) he did not comprehend the ramifications or implications of said search.

[Caninope]

I had to use Google Translate, and it may be wrong, but it said "in the absence of objection."

Absence of objection = consent. The guy did say yes, even though he didn't know the consequences (and still was no warrant). Had he known it, he would have said no.

No, absence of objection =/= consent.

[Samuraikoku]

No, absence of objection =/= consent.

Yes according to our law, and you can see that there. It repeatedly mentions consent. You can see the word "consentimiento" or "ausencia de consentimiento" (absence of consent), as well as "ausencia de reparos" (absence of objection).

Edit: Wait a second, I know what you mean.

The fact that he didn't say no doesn't mean he gave his consent, because it's not TRULY a consent if he DOESN'T KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS SAYING YES. There we go.

[Caninope]

No, absence of objection =/= consent.

Yes according to our law, and you can see that there. It repeatedly mentions consent. You can see the word "consentimiento" or "ausencia de consentimiento" (absence of consent), as well as "ausencia de reparos" (absence of objection).

Edit: Wait a second, I know what you mean.

The fact that he didn't say no doesn't mean he gave his consent, because it's not TRULY a consent if he DOESN'T KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS SAYING YES. There we go.

You guys need to fix your law then.

[The Grand World Order]

Anything that convicts someone of a crime is an invasion of privacy on the police's part, and the police itself is an evil strongman to maintain the ebil state's monopoly on violence and steal money from everyone in the form of taxes to feed to their Annunaki masters. -AnGWO

[Samuraikoku]

You guys need to fix your law then.

Okay, but that's another story. Do you believe now that I'm telling the truth?

[Caninope]

You guys need to fix your law then.

Okay, but that's another story. Do you believe now that I'm saying the truth?

Now that a source has been provided, yes.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Anything that convicts someone of a crime is an invasion of privacy on the police's part, and the police itself is an evil strongman to maintain the ebil state's monopoly on violence and steal money from everyone in the form of taxes to feed to their Annunaki masters. -AnGWO

'Tis true, Gee-dub, 'tis true.

[Finium]

lets summarize shall we?
•Woman raped
•police can't find anyone
•police ask for DNA
•most give one
•police suspect one man
•police collect finger prints
•court allows them to take DNA
•suspect probably (99.9%) raped the woman

The area in red, that's our problem.

Now shall we examine why this could possibly an invasion of privacy, well the basic idea is that if you don't want your finger prints floating around in the world then police shouldn't take, we can solve that by having mandatory fingerprinting for everyone
But the DNA part. A man is suspected of committing a crime, the proof is good but not enough. The court has enough belief in the proof that they decide to take one drop of blood, if he was not the criminal then the DNA would be destroyed and no one would ever know, making it very private info. But he was a criminal so they keep the DNA info so that they can find him if he ever does this again. Now he privacy was violated for a few moments then it would have been restored had he still retained that right. If our founding fathers new that there was such a simple way to solve such an awful crime then I'm sure police would have a consitutional right to that WHEN THE court allows them to

[Rentusera]

We're talking about the real world here.

:( too much legalese for me...

No further comment.

EDIT: Actually, one-liner formulated: "So that's why you Americans need accountants or software to do your taxes for you?"

Yeah, well you try to do better.