5 ms·

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from

"What exactly part of this is criminal? " The part where you commit obstruction of justice by identifying which people are cops and hiding the law-breaking from them while you know they are investigating. (and you do it because the law-breaking is benefiting you). Uber would have been significantly better off, legally, actually and clearly refusing service instead of deliberately misleading them. If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you say "3000 miles away in a storm drain" to deliberately mislead them, congrats, there are plenty of jurisdictions where you have committed obstruction. If every time they come around, you deliberately cover the spots with blood and the murder weapon hiding spot, ....

bronson 10y ago
> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Yes. You don't have to talk to cops. But that doesn't make you any less an accessory in this example. You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    The fifth only protects you from self-incrimination.
    - alexbecker 10y ago
      I think the fifth is interpreted more broadly than that. You don't need to have a specific law in mind that you believe you have broken (and would reveal) to take the fifth; you merely need to believe that it is possibly that what you say might be incriminating in some way. Which, given the fact that no person could reasonably be expected to know the whole of the law, and given that lying to a federal agent in the performance of their duties is always illegal, is a pretty safe bet.
  - memmcgee 10y ago
    5th amendment applies to self-incrimination. You can absolutely be compelled to testify against someone else.
MichaelGG 10y ago
But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? Surely if an unidentified police officer comes up and asks you something, lying to them can't be illegal. Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?
- pyre 10y ago
  > Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime? Technically the law breakers are the Uber drivers, no? If so, then Uber is aiding them avoiding the cops.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Exactly.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Thank you both for the explanation.
- nappy 10y ago
  IANAL but deliberately lying and deceiving with intent as part of a commercial transaction is generally concenered fraud.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? " Actually, Uber tracked the people who were around police stations, or likely to be officers, and gave them fake data. So you have it the wrong way around :) "Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?" The problem here is that uber was helping to cover up someone else's crime. The crime was committed by the uber drivers (usually a misdemeanor of not having proper licensing). Uber is helping cover up that crime. It is also, even worse for uber, the case that they made money by doing so. If every time people that look like they might be cops come around investigating your friend, you hide your friends drugs, yes, you are committing obstruction
CaptainZapp 10y ago
If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Absolutely defensible. You are under no obligation to talk to law enforcement and as a matter of fact it's highly advisable that you don't say anything at all until you have a competent lawyer present. I'm not a lawyer, but Ken White of Popehat is and he has a lot to say on the subject: https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ Specific insight why you should really shut the fuck up until competent counsel is present is provided in this post: https://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-please-shut-the-hell-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-... Edited to add this other relevant link: https://www.popehat.com/2007/10/26/shutupshutupshutupshutup/ https://www.popehat.com/2007/10/26/shutupshutupshutupshutup/

bronson 10y ago

> If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Not if you know the answer. Then it's accessory after the fact.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
5th amendment. Understand it. You don't have to talk to cops. People who believe what you believe are a large part of why the cops can generally ignore people's rights without being called out on it.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Yes. You don't have to talk to cops. But that doesn't make you any less an accessory in this example. You not incriminating yourself doesn't indemnify yourself.
- Tiksi 10y ago
  The fifth only protects you from self-incrimination.
  - alexbecker 10y ago
    I think the fifth is interpreted more broadly than that. You don't need to have a specific law in mind that you believe you have broken (and would reveal) to take the fifth; you merely need to believe that it is possibly that what you say might be incriminating in some way. Which, given the fact that no person could reasonably be expected to know the whole of the law, and given that lying to a federal agent in the performance of their duties is always illegal, is a pretty safe bet.
- memmcgee 10y ago
  5th amendment applies to self-incrimination. You can absolutely be compelled to testify against someone else.

MichaelGG 10y ago

But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? Surely if an unidentified police officer comes up and asks you something, lying to them can't be illegal. Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?

pyre 10y ago
> Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime? Technically the law breakers are the Uber drivers, no? If so, then Uber is aiding them avoiding the cops.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Exactly.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Thank you both for the explanation.
nappy 10y ago
IANAL but deliberately lying and deceiving with intent as part of a commercial transaction is generally concenered fraud.
DannyBee 10y ago
"But these people didn't identify as cops did they? More like undercover? " Actually, Uber tracked the people who were around police stations, or likely to be officers, and gave them fake data. So you have it the wrong way around :) "Your last paragraph is it. If you see someone that might be a cop and you hide your weapons, is that an additional crime?" The problem here is that uber was helping to cover up someone else's crime. The crime was committed by the uber drivers (usually a misdemeanor of not having proper licensing). Uber is helping cover up that crime. It is also, even worse for uber, the case that they made money by doing so. If every time people that look like they might be cops come around investigating your friend, you hide your friends drugs, yes, you are committing obstruction

CaptainZapp 10y ago

If the cops come by, and ask you where your friend stashed the murder weapon, and you refuse to talk to them - probably defensible Absolutely defensible. You are under no obligation to talk to law enforcement and as a matter of fact it's highly advisable that you don't say anything at all until you have a competent lawyer present. I'm not a lawyer, but Ken White of Popehat is and he has a lot to say on the subject: https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/ Specific insight why you should really shut the fuck up until competent counsel is present is provided in this post: https://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-please-shut-the-hell-up/ https://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-... Edited to add this other relevant link: https://www.popehat.com/2007/10/26/shutupshutupshutupshutup/ https://www.popehat.com/2007/10/26/shutupshutupshutupshutup/