1. Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

    Dismiss Notice

Youth Indiana

Discussion in 'Speeding Tickets, Traffic & Moving Violations' started by Disabled Vet, Nov 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello Irish223

    A law governing a specific subject matter overrides a law that only governs general matters,OK?

    IF there is no a law covering police questioning minor,when not in custody,then there is no lex specialis that would govern this,ok?

    But that does not mean what you imply it means - that if there is no law prohibiting police questioning they are allowed to do it.Do you know why?
    Because if there is no lex specialis that would govern this,THEN legi generali takes over AND GOVERNS THIS.The laws that regulate the general matters pertaining to consent of minors/legal competence of minors/official capacity of a police officer when interacts with citizens when on duty etc.
    Lex specialis derogat legi generali (a law governing a specific subject matter (lex specialis) overrides a law which only governs general matters (lex generalis) )

    Arguments "e contrario" are often used in the legal system, as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws.

    Argumentum e contrario IS NOT logical fallacy,ok?

    Lets use it.

    THEN,By applying argumentum e contrario to Lex specialis derogat legi generali ,the result is - if there is no lex specialis,lex generalis governs.Ok?

    Understand? :)

    That is called interpretation of the laws.

    You call it debating.

    Either way,you clarified nothing.
    What did you clarify and where? The "simply not true" statements are clarity that you offer?
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  2. army judge

    army judge Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,226
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Outstanding analysis!!!

    You're precisely on point.

    I'll shut up now, you've said it all so well!
     
  3. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Judge

    My mother has been upset for many years that I did not become lawyer like my dad.She always thought I had the talent for it.:D
     
  4. army judge

    army judge Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,226
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The best lawyers are people who use common sense. Mom was right, you missed your calling. Your dad would be proud!

    It is never too late to do something you could have done in the past.
     
  5. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113

    NO. Absolutely not. The police do not have a right to take the phone in this manner. Doing so would be a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

    HOWEVER, as you describe it here, the driver willingly gave the phone to the officer and effectively gave consent to the search in doing so, which makes it entirely LEGAL.

    All the driver had to say was "No", and not give the officer the phone. If the officer then took the phone anyway then he would be liable to civil penalties, and any incriminating evidence found on the phone would likely be inadmissible in court.

    If the officer is denied access to the phone and wants to see cell phone records then he can write a search warrant, get a judge to approve it, and then get the records from the phone company.... and nobody is going to go through all that over a traffic accident.

    It is a matter of knowing your rights and standing up for yourself. In this case the officer was not wrong because there was consent to his actions. The driver might not have felt as if he had a choice, but he did, and the act of handing the phone over was all the consent needed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  6. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Perhaps this varies by state. This is not at all the case in California. There are variables as to whether or not the minor is being detained or in custody, and whether or not a request has been made.
     
  7. army judge

    army judge Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,226
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Moose, I respect what you do. Thank you for serving the citizens in your jurisdiction. You impress me as a police officer and citizen possessed of great integrity. I usually agree with most of what you post.

    That said, a minor can't consent to anything. They can't waive their rights. They possess the same rights as an adult in regards to Miranda Warnings. They can't, however, waive that right. That belongs solely to their parent or guardian.

    Of course, a police officer can ask a child which way the bad guy went? Did you see a man in a plaid coat, sonny? I don't think anyone is disputing that line of questioning.
     
  8. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mightymoose hi

    Minors are legal incompetents.

    They can not give implied ,or expressed consent in this instance,even if they WANTED to.Thys,if they did,it is invalid,because ONLY the guardian can give such consent,wheather implied or expressed.

    In what capacity a police officer interacts with citizens.In his official capacity representing the goverment.

    Why would the goverment interact with legal incompetent this way? When THE goverment made the rules (made laws) that minors are legal incompetents and their guardians give consent for them.

    WHY would he question without consent from guardian?

    The consent from the minor is INVALID.
     
  9. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :D Ah,the Judge said the same thing one minute before me.
    I wanted to collect the witt....
     
  10. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What you say here is very much in the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, which provides that powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution or reserved to the states or to the people. If the government has not prohibited an act, then it is legal... however, this is part of why we have juries who hear evidence and determine if a crime was in fact committed. Something that is not explicitly prohibited may fit into the gray area of a more vague statute.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  11. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Yes Army Judge, you are right, but you are jumping to the far end of the spectrum where a juvenile is a criminal suspect in custody. In the situation given the juvenile is not in custody and is not a criminal suspect.

    Further, yes, police can and do interview children all the time without parents present, however when certain variables come into play THEN Miranda and parents come into play.
     
  12. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong,nobody claimed that we are talking about situation when the juvenile is in custody.

    WE are talking about situation when juvenile is NOT in custody.

    Police represents goverment.

    Goverment communicates ONLY with legal competents.

    When goverment wants to communicate with legal incompetents,goverment goes to the guardians,first.

    Ok?

    :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  13. irish223

    irish223 Moderator

    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0


    IMO, you're beating a horse that should be dead. Despite this clarification earlier on in the thread, this "debate" is ongoing. Good luck, but I think you're wasting your time.
     
  14. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The minor was not in custody. In such a situation there is no advisement required, and there is no waiver required... and yes, a minor can waive rights though that waiver will be subject to scrutiny later.

    In fact, California law requires that a juvenile IN CUSTODY be advised of his rights as soon as is practicable, and a waiver MUST be obtained prior to questioning. There is no requirement that a parent be present prior to questioning, although a parent is to be informed that the child is in custody. The parent is not to be denied access to the child in custody and can invoke on his behalf.

    In the scenario given we have a traffic investigation, not a criminal investigation. This is simply general questioning by the police and not an in-custody interrogation, and the cell phone search was 100% legitimate.

    Again, I say this only as it pertains to California. Perhaps this varies by state.
     
  15. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ya well, I joined the party late.
     
  16. mightymoose

    mightymoose Moderator

    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    113

    When you argue that the officer should not be talking to the juvenile then you bring the issue of custody into play.

    In a non-custody, non-criminal scenario as we have there is no wrong doing by the officer. The only significance that age has to do with this scenario is whether or not the juvenile could legally drive the vehicle, which is not in question.
     
  17. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong again,I never brought the custody issue into play.Go through the posts.

    Irish223 did.And to that I responded to her, in post number 21 .

    All that IS regulated must not conflict with the Constitution.


    Nothing is unregulated.

    If not by lex specialis,then by lex generalis.

    If not by lex specialis and/or lex generalis,then it is to be inferred from the Constitution.

    So is what should Police officer do,when needs information from minor/legal incompetent,when the Minor is not detained,as well as when is detained.

    In both instances he acts representing government.The government communicates with entities who are presumed legal competent and legal guardians of the legal incompetents,before it tries to communicate with the legal incompetents.Because the "government" should not chat with little kids ,IMO,before going to mom and dad and ask if that is ok.

    All that is matter of interpretation of the laws.There are rules about interpretations of the laws.I used one in post number 21.Please tell me where I erred
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  18. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1.How did the juvenile driver give consent to the search by giving the phone "willingly" when officer asked for it,when legal incompetent can not give consent,either expressed,or implied.

    In order to give implied consent,the legal presumptions are:

    a)One knows and understands his/her rights
    b)One by not asserting those rights,waives them

    In order one to be legal incompetent the legal presumption is that he/she doesn't understand his/her rights and is unable to protect them.

    What can be only possible logical conclusion?



    Never mind custodial interrogation or "friendly chat" issue .The police wanted to "investigate" ,incident/accident/possible crime , and acted in official capacity,representing the government.Why government investigates legal incompetent about incident/accident/possible crime,without obtaining consent from the legal guardian ?

    What "friendly chat"? If they want friendly chat,go talk to an adult,who understands that he can withdraw from it any time he wants and shut his mouth.

    Is it? Well,do you know why the minors have guardians? It is because they don't know their rights,and are presumed that can't "stand" for themselves.

    Really? Which consent? Consent given by legal incompetent is not valid consent.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2010
  19. john39

    john39 New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Assuredly there is great merit and wisdom in this words of yours,mighty moderator.But I assure you,you can scarcely preserve that which you have so honorably acquired,that made you moderator,if you win debates this way
     
  20. irish223

    irish223 Moderator

    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I'm not debating, I'm not interested in debating, nor am I trying to win a debate. I believe I've already made that clear. You, however.... well, you just sound jealous.
     

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.