Is it a citizen's duty to know their rights, or should they be informed by police?

[rambone]

Why should it be a police officer's duty to teach people about their rights? When someone turns 18, should the government be required to explain the 2nd Amendment to them? What else should the government be required to educate people about? If the suspect is overweight should the police also lecture them about proper diet and exercise? If they smoke cigarettes, should the police have to explain the dangers of tobacco use? If people are too lazy/ignorant to know about their basic rights as a U.S. citizen then that's their lack of effort.

I proposed an idea that was specifically regarding rights, and as an action to be performed by police as they try to enter private space that does not belong to them.

Your inquiries about the 2nd amendment, & health care choices don't apply because they do not involve a government agent actively trying to nudge his way into those arenas, so there is no reason to be talking to people about it period.

Basically, if you want to enforce all these Nanny State laws regarding illegal contraband, I don't think one small warning issued to the people should be too much to ask. This idea would be free, doesn't violate anyone's rights, is constitutional, necessary to reinforce the 4th amendment, and would be a responsible thing to do to protect people from intrusion.

I voted No. It is up to each citizen to educate himself on his rights and then assert them at the appropriate time. Just like I enjoy reading about the Darwin award winners, if someone is so stupid as to agree to a search of his vehicle that is full of illegal contraband, then I hope he gets arrested and thrown in prison.

I have a feeling that most of the "no" votes must be thinking this to some degree. Basically, "its only drug addicts who are dumb enough to say yes to a search." I have to bring this into the debate: not everyone who consents to a search is stupid. Some are uninformed, some are intimidated, some are not capable of understanding the concepts being presented to them (children).

Uninformed. Those who honestly just have no idea what their rights are. They aren't bad people, just uninformed. Public Schools aren't exactly doing a good job of providing a good civic education to 90% of Americans these days. They are more or less just indoctrination centers in a lot of ways, turning people into good little socialist citizens. Is it any wonder that people don't know their rights in the constitution? Is it necessarily the fault of a person who has never been exposed to the contents of the constitution? Does an uninformed person deserve less rights than anyone else?

Intimidated. I have brought instances to this forum regarding brutality that has arisen from people trying to assert their right to refuse a search. Some people consent to be searched out of fear, not stupidity. It does happen, and people may think that something terrible is going to happen to them if they say no.

Incapable. I have also brought up quite a few instances of children being arrested for various "crimes". Children, lacking the legal power to make their own decisions, and without the intellectual development to fully understand the implications of an officer's questions. I don't consider them stupid either. Then there are other folks who may hold mental disabilities. Confused elderly folks. Also not stupid.

These are a few instances beyond the thinking that only stupid people (and guilty drug dealers) consent to searches. There are many different reasons that people may be uninformed or misinformed about their rights. I don't think it would be wrong to add in one extra disclaimer as a chance for them to get informed before their privacy is invaded.

 

[machete]

Why should it be a police officer's duty to teach people about their rights?

because theyre the ones taking them... we pay you,,,so we order you to provide this notification...

that simple....

 

[MTC]

Rambone,

I also voted no earlier, but did not post at the time. My reasons are roughly along the lines already posted by others. Put another way...

Is it a citizen's duty (or responsibility) to know their rights? Yes.
It is desirable that they learn or be taught about rights as part of an integrated curriculum, and/or through further study on their own initiative. It is also best, but not required, that one cross-reference and confirm where necessary through competent legal counsel.

It is not necessary for, and I personally do not require, a police officer to recite for me a litany of rights at the side of the road or anywhere else. That said, I prefer that he not ask me invasive and intrusive questions such as, "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?" which are irrelevant to the moving violation he stopped me for, and is, in any case, none of his business. Luckily that has only happened once in the distant past, almost as an afterthought, by a young county deputy after he had already handed me a citation for exceeding the posted speed limit. Since I was running late on my way to an assignment in a "gun free zone", I was able to honestly answer, "Not today". I often wonder what he'd have done if the answer had been different, or I remained silent.

In short, I disagree with the Miranda requirement and any extension of it, yet at the same time, nosy fishing expedition questions are obvious attempts to get around, or get one to waive 4th Amendment rights.

 

[moischmoe]

yeah it should be said...government should always tell people their rights

Even the ones they don't like.

 

[jsharmon7]

I proposed an idea that was specifically regarding rights, and as an action to be performed by police as they try to enter private space that does not belong to them.

Your inquiries about the 2nd amendment, & health care choices don't apply because they do not involve a government agent actively trying to nudge his way into those arenas, so there is no reason to be talking to people about it period.

Basically, if you want to enforce all these Nanny State laws regarding illegal contraband, I don't think one small warning issued to the people should be too much to ask. This idea would be free, doesn't violate anyone's rights, is constitutional, necessary to reinforce the 4th amendment, and would be a responsible thing to do to protect people from intrusion.

I brought them up to make a point. Why should it be the government's responsibility to educate adults on their rights? Do you not believe in personal responsibility?

 

[ocsdor]

Here's an idea: Require the police to get a written signature permission (excluding warrants and probable cause of coarse) by the vehicle driver (or owner) before being allowed to search the vehicle. On that form, list the rights of the citizens in regards to accepting or refusing the search.

Otherwise, if the police are "required" to explain the rights to citizens, then lawyers will always find something petty to get their client off.

 

[Keyser Soze]

because theyre the ones taking them... we pay you,,,so we order you to provide this notification...

that simple....

You have never answered my quested...What do you do for a living? I pay myself. You do not own me. I am not your thug. I operated within the authority I am given based on case law and the constitution.

 

[88GT]

I voted No. It is up to each citizen to educate himself on his rights and then assert them at the appropriate time. Just like I enjoy reading about the Darwin award winners, if someone is so stupid as to agree to a search of his vehicle that is full of illegal contraband, then I hope he gets arrested and thrown in prison.

Really?

Holding the children responsible for the sins of the parents.

 

[serpicostraight]

people should know thier rights. but with the liberals teaching the schools these days its gonna be hard to convince little johnny he has rights when his teacher has him singing obama praises.

 

[rambone]

I brought them up to make a point. Why should it be the government's responsibility to educate adults on their rights? Do you not believe in personal responsibility?

Of course I believe in personal responsibility. It goes both ways though. Repeal all these silly laws that protect us from scary objects, guns, plants, cigars, chinese stars, knives, needles, et cetera -- and we won't have to worry about being informed of our rights. There was a time in America where cops didn't routinely check inside people's cars. Lets go back to those days. Both police and citizen can be responsible for ourselves. Right now we have hundreds of nannies who want to check that we are wearing our seatbelts and see what is in our trunks. As long as we have those nannies poking their noses into our business, this type of idea holds relevance. IMO

 

[hornadylnl]

Of course I believe in personal responsibility. It goes both ways though. Repeal all these silly laws that protect us from scary objects, guns, plants, cigars, chinese stars, knives, needles, et cetera -- and we won't have to worry about being informed of our rights. There was a time in America where cops didn't routinely check inside people's cars. Lets go back to those days. Both police and citizen can be responsible for ourselves. Right now we have hundreds of nannies who want to check that we are wearing our seatbelts and see what is in our trunks. As long as we have those nannies poking their noses into our business, this type of idea holds relevance. IMO

Don't forget lawn darts. We need to be protected from them also.

 

[Doug]

I though refusing to allow a warrant-less search WAS probable cause!

 

[Keyser Soze]

Of course I believe in personal responsibility. It goes both ways though. Repeal all these silly laws that protect us from scary objects, guns, plants, cigars, chinese stars, knives, needles, et cetera -- and we won't have to worry about being informed of our rights. There was a time in America where cops didn't routinely check inside people's cars. Lets go back to those days. Both police and citizen can be responsible for ourselves. Right now we have hundreds of nannies who want to check that we are wearing our seatbelts and see what is in our trunks. As long as we have those nannies poking their noses into our business, this type of idea holds relevance. IMO

I agree with your general idea but disagree. Along the lines of excessive use of force, violating civil rights, its been getting better.

You think bad cops were just born? Imagine 30 years ago having zero accountability other than your own self conscious. I was trained by a excellent police officer that graduated class 0. He is 71 and still works part time. The story's he tells me.....some of the stuff just would not even be thought about to day by even the worst of officers. That being said frequency does not excuse any bad behavior.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Miranda only applies Police custody police interrogation. Something like this already exist its called the Pirtle warning (pirtle vs state)

1. You have the right to require a search warrant be obtained before any search of your residence vehicle or other premises.
2. You have the right to refuse to consent to any such search.
3. You have the right to consult with an attorney prior to giving consent to any such search.
4. If you cannot afford a layer you have the right to have one provided at no cost.

Do you understand these rights?

Bearing these rights in mind are you willing to permit a complete search of your vehicle.

We already have a duty to inform someone of their rights to get consent when they are IN POLICE CUSTODY.

Keyser there is one thing about that, that only applies if your "in custody". If it is a consensual encounter, Pirtle doesn't apply. I've heard of officers on traffic stops handing the person back their DL/registration/etc. turning to go back to their car at which time the detention is officially over and it becomes a consensual encounter, then as if as an afterthought, turning back and asking about a search. There was a thread on here recently where it happened.

If I am wrong feel free to correct me, that goes for you or any other LEO or attorny here.

 

[steve666]

That being said, when it comes to my rights I wouldn't trust the police to tell me that night is dark!!!

 

[jbombelli]

The only reason to NOT tell people what their rights are, is to take advantage of their lack of knowledge and violate those rights, while pretending that you're not.

Knowing your rights is not so simple as many of you make it sound. It's not like you can memorize the Bill of Rights and that's that. There are also hundreds of thousands of pages of Supreme Court decisions you have to know, making "knowing your rights" a virtual impossibility. Supreme Court justices rarely even agree as to what they are, else there would be no dissenting opinions. How can the layperson ever be reasonably expected to know them?

Guess how I voted in this poll.

Telling us we should know our rights is like telling the police they need to know EVERY law they might be called upon to enforce. We all know THAT will never happen, don't we?

 

[rambone]

The only reason to NOT tell people what their rights are, is to take advantage of their lack of knowledge and violate those rights, while pretending that you're not.

My thoughts also.

 

[Ramen]

The implementation of this idea would result in the net loss of government income, therefore it would need to be partnered with a tax increase to offset this loss.

I shall vote yes because I believe it to be a good idea whenever government goes from an unstable to stable mode of getting back what already belongs to government...

 

[level.eleven]

The only reason to NOT tell people what their rights are, is to take advantage of their lack of knowledge and violate those rights, while pretending that you're not.

Knowing your rights is not so simple as many of you make it sound. It's not like you can memorize the Bill of Rights and that's that. There are also hundreds of thousands of pages of Supreme Court decisions you have to know, making "knowing your rights" a virtual impossibility. Supreme Court justices rarely even agree as to what they are, else there would be no dissenting opinions. How can the layperson ever be reasonably expected to know them?

Guess how I voted in this poll.

Telling us we should know our rights is like telling the police they need to know EVERY law they might be called upon to enforce. We all know THAT will never happen, don't we?

Great post. The further you go down the socio-economic ladder the less likely it is that those segments of society will know their rights, keep up on court rulings, and follow legislation. We are more aware of them because we discuss them daily and are politically aware. We have broadband internet access and leisure time to devote to research. These vulnerable demographics are often targeted by authorities because they are undereducated and lack the capital to defend themselves.

Further compounding the issue is that law and judicial procedure is purposely written in a language to make it unavailable to a public school graduate. You can't defend yourself against government without hiring a government approved specialist to act on your behalf.

Another factor is the budget gap. Once you get to court, your public defender has limited resources while the public prosecutor has near unlimited resources. Dragging out cases in attempt that the defense simply gives up is a tactic we see being used.

Dross is correct, the pendulum has swung way to far in the direction of the state. This is an issue because police are simply doing things, enforcing laws, that they simply have no legitimate interest in pursuing. And, it pretty much all revolves around two areas that you are absolutely guaranteed to utilize -your home and your car.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Keyser there is one thing about that, that only applies if your "in custody". If it is a consensual encounter, Pirtle doesn't apply. I've heard of officers on traffic stops handing the person back their DL/registration/etc. turning to go back to their car at which time the detention is officially over and it becomes a consensual encounter, then as if as an afterthought, turning back and asking about a search. There was a thread on here recently where it happened.

If I am wrong feel free to correct me, that goes for you or any other LEO or attorny here.

Yeap pirtle does not apply if it is a consensual encounter. Just make sure they have everything back and tell them they are free to leave. I always say you dont have to talk to me any more before I ask for consent.

a few prosecutors think pirtle applies to a traffic stop. IMO if you are indeed under arrest on a traffic stop wouldn't search incident to arrest apply as well?