Duty to inform and your right to not self incriminate

Aguila is correct. There is no law enacted just to make money. Usually laws are enacted in direct respone to complaints from citizens, towns, whatever. Our latest was actually created after several Troopers were hit on the highway. The legislature saw this and created a "Move-Over" law, where if you could safely move out of the right lane when emergency vehicles were on the shoulder, you were required to. There are big signs all over the highways about the new law saying move over for vehicles stopped on shoulder. Think anybody does it? Nope, very very few actually do. I wrote three tickets for this the last day I worked on the highway. One guy had almost a half mile of free left lane and stayed in the right lane and almost ran over the wrecker guy that was towing a car for me. I stopped him and asked if he was aware of the new law and he said he was. I asked him why he didn't move over, as he had an entire half a mile of left lane open, and he had no answer.

Did I think, "Wow, that's some big fines for the state!!" Hell no, I said i can't believe that dude didn't move over and almost clipped the wrecker dude. Didn't even think about the fine amount. I had to look it up because I had no clue what the fine for that was.
 
If informing the police officer requires you to admit to a crime then it would violate your fifth amendment rights.

US v. Haynes is somewhat instructive because it ruled a firearms registration requirement violated the 5th amendment because it required people who failed to comply with the NFA's transfer requirements, thus committed a felony, to send the secretary of the treasury information admitting to the commission of said felony.


Let's say you are carrying in a prohibited area, are stopped by police, and the state your are in requires you to inform the police.

Are you required to inform?

Part of the courts ruling in Haynes was that the registration requirement that the defendant was charged with violating only applied to those who had failed to comply with the acts requirements reagrding transfers. Thus it only applied to those who had committed a crime and the risk of prosecution was real and appreciable.

Even though the must inform law doesn't only apply to those who have committed a crime the government still can't require you to admit to a crime. I just don't see anyway around it.

So let's say you don't inform and the officer pats you down and finds your gun.

My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it, is that you couldn't be successfully prosecuted for failing to inform but would be prosecuted for carrying in a prohibited place assuming the stop and pat down were legal. In the end you get prosecuted for the more serious charge.

If you knew you were in a prohibited place and had a gun on you I would certainly recommend that you exercise your right to remain silent. Of course I would also recommend that you not carry in prohibited places.
 
Think anybody does it? Nope, very very few actually do.
Click to expand...

I have been doing that for years conn trooper long before any laws came out. It's not only a courtesy, but it can protect the driver too. I know FL has that law, but my home state does not.
 
Don P said:
I have to ask, what law are you referring to?
Click to expand...
The "Move out of the granny lane when passing emergency vehicles on the shoulder" Law. A lot of states in the midwest and west have had such a law for years. I wasn't aware Connecticut had enacted one, but I tend to do it anyway so it wouldn't matter even if I were driving in Connecticut.
 
yes, states like FL have signs on the highway warning and/or advising drivers that its against the law not to move over while passing emergency vehicles(such as towtrucks, police, and so-on). I can't disgree with that law. Too many times some unfortunate soul gets picked off trying to change a tire. I guess its not against the law to not move over for him, but it just makes sense to use extra caution. I always sort of figured thats how the law came to be, and because too many needless deaths have occured in the breakdown lane.
 
My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it, is that you couldn't be successfully prosecuted for failing to inform but would be prosecuted for carrying in a prohibited place assuming the stop and pat down were legal. In the end you get prosecuted for the more serious charge.
Click to expand...
Well that's about exactly what I figured. Unfortunately, there is no case law that I can find relating to this topic directly. US vs Haynes seems to be a good argument though.
At this point, I have a stronger feeling that the "duty to inform" laws would not legally apply in the original situation. Whether or not I choose to invoke my right to not self incriminate in that type of situation, well... I have no idea, and lets hope I don't find out. Lets hope NC (and other states) fix their silly inform laws first.
If anyone else well versed in constitutional law would like to contribute their thoughts, by all means...
 
If you are legally carrying a handgun, then you are not incriminating yourself by informing the officer that you have a handgun.

So, I'm a bit confused as to why someone thinks you are incriminating yourself by this notification to the officer.
 
RETG said:
If you are legally carrying a handgun, then you are not incriminating yourself by informing the officer that you have a handgun.

So, I'm a bit confused as to why someone thinks you are incriminating yourself by this notification to the officer.
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of the whole point. If you carried the gun onto prohibited property then you WEREN'T "legally carrying", were you?
 
If you carried the gun onto prohibited property then you WEREN'T "legally carrying", were you?
Click to expand...
Correct, you wouldn't be carrying legally. But lets be honest, it some states its easy to find yourself in a situation as described. Luckily for me, Virginia is not that kind of state...
 
Fortunately, the Minnesota carry law is written so as not to entrap anyone who is permitted to carry.
This link is an example,
I could not paste the wording because of the strikeouts.

Minnesota law is hard to read because of the re-wording for the changes made in 2005. But anyway we are not held the same as someone without a carry permit if we find ourselves in a restricted area.
But we are not recognized on any federal property. We will be prosecuted like everyone else.
The 5th would be my position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top