C
Collin
Guest
- Jurisdiction
- Michigan
As a 16 year old do I have my first amendment rights and what are my rights when approached by an officer
army judge
Super Moderator
As a minor, any rights you have flow through your parents or guardians.
If a police officer approaches you, I suggest you remain calm, and resist the idiotic temptation to start spouting off about any rights you THINK you might have.
Legally, all minors are considered "legal incompetents".
In other words, courts don't recognize you, insofar as rights are concerned, until you've reached the age of majority.
If for example, you were injured walking down the street by a falling debris off an tall building. Your parents would have to bring a lawsuit on your behalf, as you're incompetent to do so.
If you're approached by a police officer, and want to be a legal big shot, I suggest you remain calm, be cooperative, be polite, and say, "My name is Mike Minor. I was born on June 1st, 2000. I'm a minor and can't answer any other questions unless my mother or father are present. May I call them, or will you do it at the station house?"
Better advice is to obey all of THEIR laws, don't be a smart ass, and you won't have any trouble with law enforcement, ever.
Suppose you tell us what happened rather than posting vague questions about "rights"? In this country we have any number of rights, but the ones most applicable depend upon the situation. Being approached by an officer tells us nothing at all. It also isn't clear why you think the first amendment has anything to do with the situation.
jayh991
Member
The police can question you without a parent present if you are not in custody.
If you are in custody, there is no Constitutional guarantee to have your parents present. The police must advise you of your Miranda rights. The Supreme Court has determined that police must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if/when a minor invokes their right. Generally, the courts have affirmed that merely asked for a parent is an invocation to the right to remain silent and/or the right to obtain counsel.
If you are in custody, there is no Constitutional guarantee to have your parents present. The police must advise you of your Miranda rights. The Supreme Court has determined that police must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if/when a minor invokes their right. Generally, the courts have affirmed that merely asked for a parent is an invocation to the right to remain silent and/or the right to obtain counsel.
I think we need to just look at the question. The response is going beyond the scope and seems not to address the issues in the question.
The First Amendment concerns the constitutionally protected right of free speech. This is typically misunderstood by many as being able to say whatever you want. I'd have to guess that the original poster is young and is parroting phrases without necessarily appreciating accuracy.
The right of free speech means the ability to freely speak provided it doesn't impinge upon the law. Most believe it means the right to say whatever you wish. That is wrong. Words that are "fighting words" or threats of imminent harm are not protected (e.g. a verbal assault, a threat to slash someone's face with a knife.) Defamation is another type of speech that is not protected.
While the first question concerns whether spoken words are "lawful or unlawful" the second concerns whether the spoken words (whether lawful or unlawful) are admissibile as evidence in criminal proceedings. What is said in public and doesn't concern an issue of being in police custody is certainly admissible as evidence against the speaker. Unless there is some material fact not mentioned, merely being approached by an officer does not equate to being detained. Saying something at that time is almost certainly admissible.
The First Amendment concerns the constitutionally protected right of free speech. This is typically misunderstood by many as being able to say whatever you want. I'd have to guess that the original poster is young and is parroting phrases without necessarily appreciating accuracy.
The right of free speech means the ability to freely speak provided it doesn't impinge upon the law. Most believe it means the right to say whatever you wish. That is wrong. Words that are "fighting words" or threats of imminent harm are not protected (e.g. a verbal assault, a threat to slash someone's face with a knife.) Defamation is another type of speech that is not protected.
While the first question concerns whether spoken words are "lawful or unlawful" the second concerns whether the spoken words (whether lawful or unlawful) are admissibile as evidence in criminal proceedings. What is said in public and doesn't concern an issue of being in police custody is certainly admissible as evidence against the speaker. Unless there is some material fact not mentioned, merely being approached by an officer does not equate to being detained. Saying something at that time is almost certainly admissible.
Ask a Question
Share this page
