It's Time for the Courts to Catch with Technology

Why is this kind of thing so hard to understand?

Neither Judges nor the general public should be terribly confused by this. (I'm not buying the "because it's high technology" line).

Just imagine if the courts and public had had such difficulty understanding that shooting someone with a "high tech" firearm, or running them over with an automobile, was somehow more acceptable than using a blade or a horse-drawn carriage.

> Why is this kind of thing so hard to understand?

It's not. But the idea of limitations on government power seems to have gotten completely lost over the past 200 years, so what do we expect? If the courts would simply focus on that concept, rulings like this would be easy to make.

Well put,...

My borough actually has an ordinance requiring anyone with a security system in their house to buy a "license" or pay an accessment to have it installed. We supposedly have a right to be "secure' in our homes,... but they put prohibitions on having "home security." Do I have an unregistered security system in my home??? I refuse to answer, invoking my 5th Amendment rights, on the ground that the question is calculated to produce an answer that may tend to incriminate me. I similarly object to requirements to license firearms in the home. I want anyone, Police especially included, to be f-ing afraid for their lives to kick down any door in the USA, be it in an affluent neighborhood, or a slum.

Quoting: I refuse to answer, invoking my 5th Amendment rights, on the ground that the question is calculated to produce an answer that may tend to incriminate me.

I hold the same moral convictions, Jase. However, Ron Miller quoted the Constitution, and so will I. Invoking the Fifth only applies to criminal cases. The pertinent part is:

Quoting: ... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

> ...Invoking the Fifth only applies to criminal cases.

OK, IANAL, but...

If it's a borough ordinance (which I believe is the equivalent of a city or county law), then it is a criminal case. If it's the equivalent of an HMA covenant, then that's a civil matter, but they don't have the authority to compel testimony either. Only once the matter is taken to court could testimony be compelled.

Well, IAAL ... If they can fine you,... You can invoke the 5th. Also, if you have a reasonable expectation that you could be prosecuted as a result of civil testimony, you can (McCarthy v. Arnstein) likewise, plead the 5th,...

The 5th has been applied to ALL Court testimony.

Quoting: Also, if you have a reasonable expectation that you could be prosecuted as a result of civil testimony, you can (McCarthy v. Arnstein) likewise, plead the 5th,...

That's good to know. IRS courts have contended one cannot invoke the 5th in a civil proceeding.

You can quote the Constitution all you want, but it's just a useless piece of paper with no legal weight whatsoever. After all, the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from illegal search and seizure, but law enforcement and the courts have been ignoring that for decades now.

Winter in America...

@Johnston:

Well, there ARE caveats, one of which is in admin. hearings before a nongovernmental regulatory body (like the old NASD & its successor). But I'd wager the IRS is largely (more) full of feces, as they ARE a governmental agency. But note, the requirement of reporting income is not the same as having to report the source of income (if illegal). You could always, let's say, if you were Steve Balmer, report your $ Billion income and for occupation put "unspecified," rather than, "extortionist." But, the IRS can't haul you in, and force you to disclose your (illegal) occupation if you were simply to indicate something like "various," or "unspecified," or "entrepreneur." But, if you volunteer your illegal occupation, you haven't invoked the 5th... You made a public record of it.

"I invoke the Sith."

I like the sound of that!