• Norah - She/They
      link
      English
      298 months ago

      Hi, did you know that there are a large number of English speakers on the internet for whom quoting an amendment of the US constitution would not be helpful?

        • Norah - She/They
          link
          English
          128 months ago

          Yes, I would be one of them.

          That’s worse mate! You said 5th amendment three bloody times, when you could have given the same advice without referencing it at all. It’s not like saying “5th amendment” is a neck verse or something. You can just say “I’m choosing to invoke my right to not answer questions at this time” and as a bonus, that works everywhere that has such a right, including the United States ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            • @AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              38 months ago

              Well… We did kinda occupy The Philippines for about 60-70 years. It makes sense that their legal system might look like ours, kinda like Japan as well. I know we basically set up the modern Japanese government, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out we did the same thing in The Philippines.

    • Einar
      link
      fedilink
      188 months ago

      Again, only in the US.

      Nevertheless, the right to remain silent is protected in many countries. Deciding whether to use it on the other hand, is not always easy.

        • @uriel238OP
          link
          48 months ago

          The US Supreme Court has ruled that passwords are protected by the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.

          Biometrics are not.

          Law enforcement hacking into your device is acceptable. Evidence on your device remains admissable with probable cause, a warrant or a judge who likes the police / dislikes you.

          Some judges will hold you in contempt for failing unlock your own device. (fourteen years is the record on contempt jail terms). So YMMV once youre facing charges.

          Theres also a forgone conclusion rule. If the prosecutors can show sufficient evidence to a crime exists on your device, you can be compelled to open it. I do not know how this proof happens.

          Also some judges (including SCOTUS by a ruling) just dont care if the evidence of a crime was legally obtained, they let it be admissible because locking you away is more important than state actors following protocols that preserve civil rights. Id est, the whole of the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States are as slippery as Schrödinger’s cat.