XPost: aus.legal, misc.legal, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "McGyver"  wrote in message   
   news:h4cm5q$p1o$1@news.albasani.net...   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message   
   > news:7chvo1F27pp8jU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>   
   >> "Mr X"  wrote in message   
   >> news:h3vucc$3uf$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...   
   >>> If someone is arrested for an offence and they refuse to give their   
   >>> details or say anything at any point what will happen to them?  Are they   
   >>> be charged or tried without giving a name?   
   >>   
   >    
   >   
   > If a person who has been arrested refuses to provided their name, and if   
   > there is a law in that state/county making it illegal to refuse to provide   
   > one's name in that situation, then that person can be charged with a crime   
   > and can be properly convicted.   
      
   So much for the right to remain *SILENT*.   
      
   >   
   > The crime is in the category of obstruction of justice.  The U.S. Supreme   
   > court held that a state law making it a crime to refuse to provide one's   
   > name and address to an arresting officer is constitutional, and more   
   > specifically, is not a violation of a person's constitutional right to be   
   > free of required self-incrimination.   
      
   One of the most bogus rulings they've made, as the IDENTITY of a   
   suspect/perp *is* one of the prime elements necessary for the Gov't   
   to PROVE BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Forcing the suspect to   
   give up a requisite conviction element of a crime *is* -- ipso facto --   
   self-incrimination.   
      
   > Therefore, the "right to remain silent" is limited.   
      
   As is the "right" against self-incrimination.   
      
   >   
   > Other countries, of course, have different laws, so it is not possible to   
   > provide a more definitive answer to a question posted in aus.legal,   
   > can.legal misc.legal and uk.legal.  If you want to know what the law is in   
   > a particular country or state, you'll have to identify the country or   
   > state.   
      
   Costa Rica's Supreme Court ruled that requiring DUI/Accident suspects   
   to remain at the scene of their crime was self-incrimination per se, and   
   invalidated the additional criminalization of "fleeing the scene".   
      
   The result was that many/most drivers who are involved in accidents   
   attempt to leave the scene.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > The answer to the second question is easier.  If the law enforcement   
   > system doesn't know the name of the accused, they can easily convict that   
   > person anyway.  All they have to do is provide a name to be used for their   
   > own records, such as "John Doe".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)