3 ms·
Technically, that would mean they aren't allowed to volunteer the information; the source says they do share it once ordered to. Which, IMHO, violates the Fift
by SilasX 5y ago
Technically, that would mean they aren't allowed to volunteer the information; the source says they do share it once ordered to.
Which, IMHO, violates the Fifth Amendment, as any compelled testimony shouldn't be admissible against you, but of course our jurists gave the government a pass on that.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoOr they just use it to start parallel construction. No need to enter it into court or record it as evidence.
- wodenokoto 5y ago> the source says they do share it once ordered to. I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t _everybody_ have to share information once met with a court order?
- nradov 5y agoA court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information. Thus if prosecutors want a piece of information for other purposes (like to prosecute a bigger criminal) they will often grant criminal immunity on that point. Then the person being questioned has no 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
- akerl_ 5y agoI’m not sure where you’re sourcing this, but courts can totally force you to share incriminating information. They cannot compel you to testify against yourself. As a more mundane example, a court can grant a search warrant compelling you to turn over your computer so that police can look for proof of suspected criminal activity. Likewise, they can get a court order compelling the IRS to hand over your tax returns.
- nradov 5y agoWithin the current interpretation of the 5th Amendment, ordering someone to turn over physical property like a computer or safe key isn't legally considered as compelling someone "to be a witness against himself". If you want the source then there are many Supreme Court opinions on this issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx
- akerl_ 5y agoI feel like we’ve looped. You wrote “A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information”. I gave an example where the court could force you to share incriminating information. Did you perhaps mean that a court order can’t force someone to answer questions that may incriminate them?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information. It can't force someone to give potentially self-incriminating testimony (not all “information” is “testimony”, and not all incrimination is self-incrimination.)
- nradov 5y agoIf we're being pedantic, the specific legal phrase is "witness against himself". The courts have interpreted that more broadly than just testimony.
- georgyo 5y agoAlso not a lawyer, but my understanding: Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced. They cannot be forced to share privileged information they may have. However, this does not protect the class of information as a whole. IE if you share your medical or legal information to a third party, they can be forced to share it.
- garmaine 5y agoPossibly also journalists, although this is less respected in practice.
- nradov 5y agoJournalists have no such protection under US federal law. Some states do have journalist shield laws but those are irrelevant in federal cases.
- garmaine 5y agoJournalists have a limited First Amendment right not to be forced to reveal information or confidential news sources in court. There’s a lot of caveats related to this though. It’s called “reporter’s privilege.”
- nradov 5y agoThere is no such thing as reporter's privilege in the US Constitution or federal law. You're just making things up.
- belltaco 5y agoSpouses too.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced. This is not quite correct. Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (who very often technically are not doctors of any kind), spouses, and clergy have various privileges which limit the scope and circumstances in which they can be compelled, which limits what court orders should be issued and may be raised on motions to quash such orders after they are issued.
- belltaco 5y ago>Which, IMHO, violates the Fifth Amendment, as any compelled testimony shouldn't be admissible against you, but of course our jurists gave the government a pass on that. Don't think so. It's not any compelled testimony. The Fifth only covers compelled testimony against one self, not against others. There are some limited exceptions like lawyers, doctors, spouses but the IRS is not covered under it. You can be compelled to testify against your friend(if the information doesn't incriminate yourself), the Fifth doesn't protect against that.
- SilasX 5y agoGreat, but in this case it is testimony against yourself.
- ceejayoz 5y agoI don't know that it's technically testimony, though. If the cops seize your diary in a raid using a warrant, it can be introduced at trial. It's evidence, not testimony.
- giantg2 5y agoYou're filling out an official form that you're required to, and affirming that the statements are correct under penalty of law. The caveat here is that you can list it as misc or various. So no admissions.
- bena 5y agoIt's not testimony. If you don't want the IRS to know about it, you have to invoke the right when you submit the return. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Federal_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...