Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
Cop: "I suspect you to be under the influence of driving while intoxicated, have you had anything to drink?"
Driver: "I want a lawyer and won't be answering any questions without one"
Cop: "Okay, we'll be administering a breathalyzer and blood draw to keep he evidence"
Driver: Can do nothing to stop that, as otherwise evidence of a crime has been committed will be "erased".
The driver never needs to admit to anything, and cannot be compelled to provide evidence in suspected other crimes - period.
-
Had he simply denied them the password, this would be a totally different thing. Had he said he wasn't going to risk something on there being interrpeted as a crime. Had he said he wasn't going to self incriminate. All of those things would mean nothing.
But he made an admission way, way, way different. He said that the evidence that they knew was there truly was there. That statement to an officer in an interrogation is similar to giving up power of attorney.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Cop: "I suspect you to be under the influence of driving while intoxicated, have you had anything to drink?"
Driver: "I want a lawyer and won't be answering any questions without one"
Cop: "Okay, we'll be administering a breathalyzer and blood draw to keep he evidence"
Driver: Can do nothing to stop that, as otherwise evidence of a crime has been committed will be "erased".
The driver never needs to admit to anything, and cannot be compelled to provide evidence in suspected other crimes - period.
Again, unrelated to the discussion. There is no doubt that the guy didn't have to admit anything. That's not being discussed, we all know that to be true. You keep repeating that as if anyone, anywhere has disagreed (or even talked about it.)
The point is that he did admit. Voluntarily. Without being asked.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
they suspect based on the statement of someone they've already charged with a similar crime and are attempting to charge with additional, similar crimes.
Nope, That's not the case. If you think this, you've missed the point of the discussion.
They don't think, they know in a legal sense because the person in question has admitted to it. That's it. Over and done, the whole thing. Passwords, eye witness, all pointless background noise.
He told the cops that what they thought was on there was, in fact, there. What more is needed to prosecute?
"Sir, we need to go in your house to see if there is evidence of a murder."
"You don't need to come in, we both know that I murdered the guy."
You don't need to see the body or find the weapon, he admitted to the crime.
This is completely different because this person explicitly admitted to murder. If the police knocked on his door and said "we need to come in and search your house", "We both know what's in there" certainly isn't an admission of any wrongdoing. Maybe when he said it would hurt him, he had pics of himself in cosplay and he was super embarrassed?
Anything the police claimed they knew but didn't actually witness first hand would certainly, 100%, be hearsay.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
"We both know what's in there" certainly isn't an admission of any wrongdoing.
Why not. If the cops believe it is evidence, and he says that what they believe is correct. That's exactly an admission of wrongdoing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
"We both know what's in there" certainly isn't an admission of any wrongdoing.
Why not. If the cops believe it is evidence, and he says that what they believe is correct. That's exactly an admission of wrongdoing.
Unless they asked him if there was CP, and he said "yes, we both know what's on there" then, no, he didn't admit to anything. If they just asked for the password and he said "we both know what's on there", which seems to be the case, then I don't see what he admitted to...
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Maybe when he said it would hurt him, he had pics of himself in cosplay and he was super embarrassed?
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
If you suspect me of a murder, and I admit to it freely of my own free will (that which you suspect me of, I have done officer) then that's it, over and one. Even if I didn't do it. I admitted to it and having been a suspect already, there's no more process involved.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
"We both know what's in there" certainly isn't an admission of any wrongdoing.
Why not. If the cops believe it is evidence, and he says that what they believe is correct. That's exactly an admission of wrongdoing.
Unless they asked him if there was CP, and he said "yes, we both know what's on there" then, no, he didn't admit to anything. If they just asked for the password and he said "we both know what's on there", which seems to be the case, then I don't see what he admitted to...
Well, one there is no plausible situation where he wasn't made aware of why he was being or had been arrested. And two, it's up to the cops under oath to state what is on there at this point, and that's all that should matter. Because he handed to them the power to claim anything.
This would be crazy, if not for the fact that he also validated it by saying that it would hurt him, and being an already known child pornagrapher... not only was his statement black and white, but also doubly or triply validated that we have no real ability to question the intended meaning of the statement even without having the cops state what he meant (which they can do because he said that they could)
-
@scottalanmiller Because, and for the last time, you can't be compelled to say something. This is ingrained in the constitution.
You cannot be compelled to give up your password to your computer, period.
Everything you've been harping on is red herrings, none of that matters. The topic was posted about how a court ruled that free speech is still free speech and that a computer password falls under that, and you can't be compelled to give up your password.
Just like the same thing with a cell phone pin code, the police can't force you to tell them what it is. But if you use a finger print reader, they can force you to unlock the phone as that's publicly accessible information - your fingerprints.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
That's the thing, his statement makes it not speculation. That's my entire point. The cops stating what was on there without him stating that is speculation. But he made it admission.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller Because, and for the last time, you can't be compelled to say something. This is ingrained in the constitution.
You cannot be compelled to give up your password to your computer, period.You are SO lost here.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
The topic was posted about how a court ruled that free speech is still free speech and that a computer password falls under that, and you can't be compelled to give up your password.
And I responded so simply and clearly that there was no need for free or muffled speech, any speech at all, when the culprit had already freely admitted to the crime.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Just like the same thing with a cell phone pin code, the police can't force you to tell them what it is. But if you use a finger print reader, they can force you to unlock the phone as that's publicly accessible information - your fingerprints.
And if you tell the cop "the evidence you seek is on there", they can charge you on your admission of guilt anyway, without ever getting your pin or access.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
That's the thing, his statement makes it not speculation. That's my entire point. The cops stating what was on there without him stating that is speculation. But he made it admission.
No he made a statement, and the cops have made him a suspect of additional crimes.
A murder suspect doesn't have to give the cops the location of the body and murder weapon. They need to go and find it. If the suspect gives that information up, it just makes the cops job easier.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
That's the thing, his statement makes it not speculation. That's my entire point. The cops stating what was on there without him stating that is speculation. But he made it admission.
No he made a statement, and the cops have made him a suspect of additional crimes.
A murder suspect doesn't have to give the cops the location of the body and murder weapon. They need to go and find it. If the suspect gives that information up, it just makes the cops job easier.
If you mention what they "have to do", you are having discussion with yourself. I'm not sure to whom you are speaking. You quote me, but aren't responding to anything I've talked about.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm leaning toward Scott's side on this. Really it would be up to you on a jury to hear - the defendant said "We both know what’s on there. " What do you as a juror think he meant? Come on, put on your big boy pants and think about that... what do you really think he meant. it's a piece of evidence that the defendant provided - verbal evidence... so you as a juror can weight it however you want.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm leaning toward Scott's side on this. Really it would be up to you on a jury to hear - the defendant said "We both know what’s on there. " What do you as a juror think he meant? Come on, put on your big boy pants and think about that... what do you really think he meant. it's a piece of evidence that the defendant provided - verbal evidence... so you as a juror can weight it however you want.
Provided voluntarily, which is key. Unless he later argues that the cops pulled a knife and threatened to kill him if he didn't admit to it (which likely there is video showing a normal interrogation) then he's stuck with "he volunteered unnecessary admission."
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm leaning toward Scott's side on this. Really it would be up to you on a jury to hear - the defendant said "We both know what’s on there. " What do you as a juror think he meant? Come on, put on your big boy pants and think about that... what do you really think he meant. it's a piece of evidence that the defendant provided - verbal evidence... so you as a juror can weight it however you want.
@Dashrender that doesn't matter.
Whether the defendant and cops know what's on the computer, doesn't mean that the defendant needs to provide access to the evidence of the crime. The police need to get the evidence, and they cannot force a defendant to provide the password to said evidence.
It needs to be provided willfully by the defendant and no coerced AKA compelled speech.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Based on what? Your personal belief that the admission of the defendant doesn't matter? You can't just make it up. I'm just using what was said, which was black and white.
Which you're clearly wrong because a state supreme court has said, no the defendant doesn't need to give up his password.
FFS
the password being given up has NOTHING to do with the fact that the defendant granted that the cops KNOW what's on there. one has nothing to do with the other...
They could go into court with just that statement - show video of them talking about child porn before that.. and then say - ok Jury - what did we know? we knew porn was on there.
