Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.

--

Money: What a concept?

In article
,
Karma Ghia wrote:

Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.

To greatly oversimplify things, inspectors don't enforce criminal laws
but mainly rules and regulations. To greatly oversimplify things even
further, criminal laws are usually those where they can deprive you of
liberty... ie send your scrawny butt to jail. Inspectors usually can
stop construction and do other things to make your life miserable, but
can't send you to jail for not having the proper rated fire doors. Even
when they could you send you to jail (when you get frustrated and take a
swing at them-grin), they will need to get a cop. They can't do that on
their own...

So, the 5th amendment doesn't apply here.

Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.

They only have to advise you of your rights if they are arresting you.

"Karma Ghia" wrote in message
...
Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


You don't say anything to the building inspectors. It is their job to
inspect the building. If they do ask you anything about the building you
simply play dumb and answer that you don't know .

Karma Ghia wrote:
Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


The answer to your question varies a lot from place to place. Most
building inspectors cannot exercise the power of arrest except for that
available to any citizen. In a way that can make them more dangerous to
you because the Miranda decision may not apply to the questions that
they ask.
--
Tom Horne

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:

Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.

Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".

Karma Ghia wrote:

Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


You are a dumb ****, aren't you.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

mm wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:


Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"

..

jJim McLaughlin wrote in message ...

You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v.
Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"

Did I see you on COPS? Were you the one using the nightstick on the
petty thief? :-)

Cheri

what's wrong with that?

--
Steve Barker




"Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom wrote in message
. ..

Did I see you on COPS? Were you the one using the nightstick on the
petty thief? :-)

Cheri

In NC, theoretically violating building codes is breaking the law.


"Karma Ghia" wrote in message
...
Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.

--

Money: What a concept?

Steve Barker wrote in message ...
what's wrong with that?

--
Steve Barker




"Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom wrote in message
...

Did I see you on COPS? Were you the one using the nightstick on the
petty thief? :-)

Cheri

Nothing. I think a cane would have worked just as well. ;-)

Cheri

jJim McLaughlin wrote:
mm wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:


Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v.
Arizona.
Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"

There's a lot of misinformation about the Miranda warning and I see you're
doing your part to spread it.

Cops never HAVE to give a Miranda warning. The only consequence of not
giving a Miranda warning is that anything the subject says cannot be used
against him. This prohibitioni also includes the "fruit of the posioned
tree" concept. If an un-Mirandized suspect tells the cops where the gun is
hidden, the gun cannot be used against the suspect either (in most cases -
if the gun would have been found anyway, the gun can be used).

Further, only government employees are burdened by having to give the
Miranda warning. Non-cops, if they ask and learn something from the suspect,
can repeat what they heard to the authorities. These "non-cops" include
medical workers at a hospital, by-standers at the crime scene, or even other
criminals.

As to "suspect," the OP was correct. If the focus of an investigation
converges on a single individual AND if the cops intend to use anything said
by this single individual, they MUST Mirandize the "suspect" before asking
him anything new.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:44:24 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:
As to "suspect," the OP was correct. If the focus of an investigation
converges on a single individual AND if the cops intend to use anything said
by this single individual, they MUST Mirandize the "suspect" before asking
him anything new.


Authorities do not Mirandize during wire taps and covert recordings.

After the Miranda decision, Mr Miranda was later arrested again and
given his Miranda Rights by the arresting Officer.

--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:48:02 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

mm wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:


Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"

No, in this context, they are related. If you want me to read some
part of Miranda post the url and tell me what paragraph(s).

Otherwise, take some Pepto-Bismal. Then read Bub's post.

Does he carry a gun? How about handcuffs?

Bob

mm wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:48:02 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:


mm wrote:


On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:



Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"


No, in this context, they are related. If you want me to read some
part of Miranda post the url and tell me what paragraph(s).

Not my job to do your homework sonny.



Otherwise, take some Pepto-Bismal. Then read Bub's post.

Dub's post is as stupid as Dub.

Having spent more than 25 years practicing criminal law in federal courts,
I know a lot moore about the subject than Dud.

Or you.

HeyBub wrote:

jJim McLaughlin wrote:

mm wrote:


On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:



Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v.
Arizona.
Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"


There's a lot of misinformation about the Miranda warning and I see you're
doing your part to spread it.

Cops never HAVE to give a Miranda warning. The only consequence of not
giving a Miranda warning is that anything the subject says cannot be used
against him. This prohibitioni also includes the "fruit of the posioned
tree" concept. If an un-Mirandized suspect tells the cops where the gun is
hidden, the gun cannot be used against the suspect either (in most cases -
if the gun would have been found anyway, the gun can be used).

Further, only government employees are burdened by having to give the
Miranda warning. Non-cops, if they ask and learn something from the suspect,
can repeat what they heard to the authorities. These "non-cops" include
medical workers at a hospital, by-standers at the crime scene, or even other
criminals.

As to "suspect," the OP was correct. If the focus of an investigation
converges on a single individual AND if the cops intend to use anything said
by this single individual, they MUST Mirandize the "suspect" before asking
him anything new.


Dud, I spent more than 25 years actively practiing ctriminal law in
federal courts. I never noticed you there.

I have some exeriece with the subject.

You, obviously, don't.


You have no idea what no what you are talking aout.

I presume the thrust of the original question is not so much whether the
inspector can arrest you for code violations but rather what the
consequences are of the inspector noticing evidence of criminal activity
(not just code violations).

If your computer conks out and you take it to Best Buy to have the Geek
Squad fix it and the guy finds your cache of kiddie porn on the hard drive
and calls the cops you're going down and no claim of warrantless search is
going to help because you voluntarily took the machine in. But if the
building inspector visits your place and he sees your grow room filled with
pot plants is it different because he's an agent of government and can
demand admission under some rule of building code law yet doesn't have a
warrant to be conducting a criminal search? I imagine he's not obligated
to ignore what he sees and he can give police info leading to a full
fledged search. No violation of expectations of privacy.

Now then if in the meantime you destroy every molecule of contraband and
the only evidence of the crime is his testimony (let's say he's a BI only
part time and he's also a PhD in botany and can testify as an expert that
what he saw was pot) then I don't know.

In article et,
Steve Kraus wrote:

If your computer conks out and you take it to Best Buy to have the Geek
Squad fix it and the guy finds your cache of kiddie porn on the hard drive
and calls the cops you're going down and no claim of warrantless search is
going to help because you voluntarily took the machine in. But if the
building inspector visits your place and he sees your grow room filled with
pot plants is it different because he's an agent of government and can
demand admission under some rule of building code law yet doesn't have a
warrant to be conducting a criminal search? I imagine he's not obligated
to ignore what he sees and he can give police info leading to a full
fledged search. No violation of expectations of privacy.


I would guess he could, under the clear view doctorine if nothing
else. If he enters a building under a legal reason (to do an inspection
of your newly finished basement for instance) and you happen to have
your "garden" already set-up in the area he is inspecting, then he can
tell anyone he wants to about it and it would be legal for the cops to
use the information to get the warrants they need.
Also the warrant has to be for a CRIMINAL search. As long as he sees
(or smells or ...) something during the regular course of his or her
business, then the cops can act on it no matter if he is an agent of
government. He has to be an AGENT of the cops (a good example is a
utility worker who, at the behest of the cops, asks to enter a building
to make sure the gas is okay) for there to be problems. If the cops put
him up to it, he is an agent of the cops and everything they get is
fruit of the poisoned tree, to coin a phrase. However, if the same
person enters the same house because there is an actual concern about
the gas and sees exactly the same thing, it can be used legally.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:22:50 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

Having spent more than 25 years practicing criminal law in federal courts,
I know a lot moore about the subject than Dud.

Based on this - Your Fired. You might misspell my brief pending before
the court?

Have you ever seen a convict? Up close? You can tell me.

--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:26:35 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

jJim McLaughlin wrote:

mm wrote:


On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:



Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v.
Arizona.
Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"


There's a lot of misinformation about the Miranda warning and I see you're
doing your part to spread it.

Cops never HAVE to give a Miranda warning. The only consequence of not
giving a Miranda warning is that anything the subject says cannot be used
against him. This prohibitioni also includes the "fruit of the posioned
tree" concept. If an un-Mirandized suspect tells the cops where the gun is
hidden, the gun cannot be used against the suspect either (in most cases -
if the gun would have been found anyway, the gun can be used).

Further, only government employees are burdened by having to give the
Miranda warning. Non-cops, if they ask and learn something from the suspect,
can repeat what they heard to the authorities. These "non-cops" include
medical workers at a hospital, by-standers at the crime scene, or even other
criminals.

As to "suspect," the OP was correct. If the focus of an investigation
converges on a single individual AND if the cops intend to use anything said
by this single individual, they MUST Mirandize the "suspect" before asking
him anything new.


Dud, I spent more than 25 years actively practiing ctriminal law in
federal courts. I never noticed you there.

Are you the Public Defender; always asking the Client to plea out?


I have some exeriece with the subject.

Like I said in another post; you. might misspell my Brief.

--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:22:50 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

Having spent more than 25 years practicing criminal law in federal courts,
I know a lot moore about the subject than Dud.

Based on this - Your Fired. You might misspell my brief pending before
the court?

Have you ever seen a convict? Up close? You can tell me.

--
Oren

Well he might make some mistakes, but at least he didn't misspell YOU'RE
like you did.

zxcvbob wrote:
Does he carry a gun? How about handcuffs?

Bob

That also varies from place to place. In San Francisco the cities
paramedics ware the seven pointed stars that are reserved by California
law to peace officers and they do carry handcuffs. In Maryland the
states fire marshals are fully sworn law enforcement officers. They're
uniformed and carry complete police equipment at all times. They
enforce the fire and building codes in rural areas of the state with no
local government. The only way to fully answer the question is to ask
the local government officials who have to swear that individual in for
her/him to exorcise police powers.
--
Tom Horne

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:22:50 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

mm wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:48:02 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:


mm wrote:


On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:30:52 -0800, Karma Ghia
wrote:



Can anything you say be used against you?
If so, why don't they advise you of your rights?
the 5th amendment.


Even the police don't have to advise you of your rights unless they
suspect you of committing a crime. When they are at the stage where
they suspect everyone, or where they have no special reason to think
you did it, you're not a "suspect".


You are almost as stupid as the OP.

Try to Google ( you can find Google, can't you?) Miranda v. Arizona.

Read Miranda v. Arizona. (You can read can't you?)

Try to understand the concept of "custody".

Here's a hint: "Custody" has nothing to do with "suspect"


No, in this context, they are related. If you want me to read some
part of Miranda post the url and tell me what paragraph(s).

Not my job to do your homework sonny.

It's not my homework. It's yours, grampa. You're the one that claims
it proves something. So prove that it does.

If you don't want to do that, read Escobedo and you'll see that I'm
right.


Otherwise, take some Pepto-Bismal. Then read Bub's post.

Dub's post is as stupid as Dub.

Having spent more than 25 years practicing criminal law in federal courts,
I know a lot moore about the subject than Dud.

If you really had practiced criminal law, you'd know you have to cite
the text of the decision and not just the case name.

Or you.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:13:35 -0800, "Eigenvector"
wrote:

Well he might make some mistakes, but at least he didn't misspell YOU'RE
like you did.

I pled the 5th, eh?

--
Oren

"Well, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it happens constantly."