3 ms·

Woz didn't lie according to his account. Technically, he gave a fake ID, but not a fake drivers license. I say this b/c DL's don't show occupation. My understan

by xpe 4y ago

Woz didn't lie according to his account. Technically, he gave a fake ID, but not a fake drivers license. I say this b/c DL's don't show occupation. My understanding is that it had his correct name. So I don't see a lie that most prosecutors would care about given the whole situation. Not to mention that it is not a good look for a secret service agent to not know the details of the actual currency he is tasked to protect (e.g. available in perforated sheets). I suppose it is possible the agent got called in not knowing the specific details warranting arrest*, but that would be even worse. * Am I right to think that Woz was arrested given that he was read his Miranda rights?

O__________O 4y ago
> makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1001.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  But was it materially false? im not sure his fake occupation was at all relevant, and since the document identified Woz, I suspect it was materially true.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Stating obvious, ultimately all individuals are responsible for their respective interpretations of the law and even judges error in their interpretations. That said, in my opinion, if an individual intentionally provides false statements or produces false documents to a federal investigator, that doing so is always a crime regardless of if it’s done to evade an investigation, material to a given investigation, etc — in part because knowing if a particular individual is being intentionally truthful is always material to an investigation.
    - ilyt 4y ago
      But "document" contained his true name and picture
      - O__________O 4y ago
        Woz per his own statements said he had to them provide his drivers ID and passport. No idea why you’re taking his account of the story as anything more than yet another lie - which is the point, he knew providing a fictional ID was an intentional misrepresentation of the truth, which I turn calls into questions any additional information he provides, which in turn makes it material to the investigation.
        doctor_eval 4y ago
        That’s not my understanding of materiality at all. If the material information he provided was true then all the other silliness is just silliness. I mean, the agent is going to search on the name, probably find a photo in a license database, and confirm the guy is who he says he is, and that is the only point of asking for ID. They are hardly strong authenticators, and no professional is going to take some random bit of ID and use the non-identifying data on it to make decisions. What do you think they are going to do with the data anyway? The fact is also that Woz did nothing wrong. So why does he have to automatically cowtow to an authority figure? He provided the materially important information in a humorous way. He didn’t do anything wrong. He poked the bear, but only a little bit. Finally - not every citizen has a passport or even a drivers license. So even if requested, it’s not always possible to produce it. Honestly - I admire Woz, but I will admit that I find his pranks to be a bit self indulgent. So what? He literally did nothing wrong and poked a bit of fun at the state.
        O__________O 4y ago
        Creditability of statements made by an investigator, witnesses, suspect, etc — are obviously material to an investigation and intentionally providing fictitious documents might be a crime, basis for throwing out testimony, throwing out evidence, etc. Nothing for or against Woz, but I for sure would never intentionally provide fictitious information or document to US federal investigator if situation ever presented itself, since ultimately once done it would be up to the investigator to present it for prosecution and judge to decide if it merited conviction. Woz makes it sound like the agent actually accepted the fake ID, but they clearly did not, since per Woz, they not only made him produce a drivers license, but also his passport. Why even put yourself in that position over a joke?
akerl_ 4y ago
You don’t need to be mirandized when you’re arrested. That’s a tv show trope. Miranda warnings are more frequently given as part of questioning, which may start on the scene of the arrest but often occurs later.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Additional notable information on the topic: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-m...
- j-bos 4y ago
  IANAL You also don't need to Mirandized at all. Miranda is only needed to use any (direct product of) evidence or starments given by suspect during the interaction in court.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    As some additional color, Miranda rights have been aggressively weakened over the last decade, and the current Supreme Court majority appears to really dislike them on their whole. Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010[0] made it so that the suspect has to explicitly invoke their own right to remain silent – simply remaining silent is not enough. And just last year in Vega v. Tekoh[1] the Court decided that it is not a violation of your civil rights if you are not Mirandized, and you therefore cannot sue over it. Together, this basically means that its incumbent on every single citizen to be aware of their Miranda rights, and to know the magic words to say. And you should really, really keep track of if your rights are read to you while you're in custody – police will certainly try to admit un-Mirandized evidence, even after all of that. > Those magic words, legal experts told USA TODAY, must be affirmatively and explicitly stated as, for example, "I want my lawyer and I want to remain silent" or "I want my lawyer and am invoking my right to remain silent." And then you should stay silent. [0] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/01/court_suspects_must_say_they_want_to_be_silent/?page=full http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/20... [1] https://archive.ph/kvKaB https://archive.ph/kvKaB
geomark 4y ago
Are you even legally required to provide ID to a federal officer? I know in some states that you are not required to provide ID to a police officer unless there is evidence you have committed a crime. Quite a few ornery citizens like to video themselves rejecting police officer's requests for ID.
- lupire 4y ago
  1. Not being required to provide id is not a defense against actively lying to a officer. 2. If you are reasonably suspected of being involved in something illegal, you can be detained until identified by some means.
  - geomark 4y ago
    1. The way it usually goes is they don't lie; they just say no when asked to provide ID. 2. It seems like the police officer has to be able to state what crime they suspect has been committed. Standing around looking suspicious is what usually draws attention but it isn't a crime so they just say no when the police ask for ID. But that's for local police in some states. So again, is it different when you refuse ID to a federal officer? I think the answer is no, that there is no federal statute that requires you to identify yourself to a federal officer unless you are suspected of a committing a crime. But IANAL nor a member of law enforcement nor one of those ornery people who like to challenge the police and even hope they will be arrested on false pretenses so they can have fun suing the police.
Zanni 4y ago
Available in sheets, yes; perforated, no. Woz had them perforated at the printer when he had them bound into pads. That's why, I assume, the repeated mention of the agent running his fingers over the perforations.

by xpe 4y ago

O__________O 4y ago

> makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1001.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...

doctor_eval 4y ago
But was it materially false? im not sure his fake occupation was at all relevant, and since the document identified Woz, I suspect it was materially true.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Stating obvious, ultimately all individuals are responsible for their respective interpretations of the law and even judges error in their interpretations. That said, in my opinion, if an individual intentionally provides false statements or produces false documents to a federal investigator, that doing so is always a crime regardless of if it’s done to evade an investigation, material to a given investigation, etc — in part because knowing if a particular individual is being intentionally truthful is always material to an investigation.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    But "document" contained his true name and picture
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Woz per his own statements said he had to them provide his drivers ID and passport. No idea why you’re taking his account of the story as anything more than yet another lie - which is the point, he knew providing a fictional ID was an intentional misrepresentation of the truth, which I turn calls into questions any additional information he provides, which in turn makes it material to the investigation.
      - doctor_eval 4y ago
        That’s not my understanding of materiality at all. If the material information he provided was true then all the other silliness is just silliness. I mean, the agent is going to search on the name, probably find a photo in a license database, and confirm the guy is who he says he is, and that is the only point of asking for ID. They are hardly strong authenticators, and no professional is going to take some random bit of ID and use the non-identifying data on it to make decisions. What do you think they are going to do with the data anyway? The fact is also that Woz did nothing wrong. So why does he have to automatically cowtow to an authority figure? He provided the materially important information in a humorous way. He didn’t do anything wrong. He poked the bear, but only a little bit. Finally - not every citizen has a passport or even a drivers license. So even if requested, it’s not always possible to produce it. Honestly - I admire Woz, but I will admit that I find his pranks to be a bit self indulgent. So what? He literally did nothing wrong and poked a bit of fun at the state.
        O__________O 4y ago
        Creditability of statements made by an investigator, witnesses, suspect, etc — are obviously material to an investigation and intentionally providing fictitious documents might be a crime, basis for throwing out testimony, throwing out evidence, etc. Nothing for or against Woz, but I for sure would never intentionally provide fictitious information or document to US federal investigator if situation ever presented itself, since ultimately once done it would be up to the investigator to present it for prosecution and judge to decide if it merited conviction. Woz makes it sound like the agent actually accepted the fake ID, but they clearly did not, since per Woz, they not only made him produce a drivers license, but also his passport. Why even put yourself in that position over a joke?

akerl_ 4y ago

You don’t need to be mirandized when you’re arrested. That’s a tv show trope. Miranda warnings are more frequently given as part of questioning, which may start on the scene of the arrest but often occurs later.

O__________O 4y ago
Additional notable information on the topic: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-m...
j-bos 4y ago
IANAL You also don't need to Mirandized at all. Miranda is only needed to use any (direct product of) evidence or starments given by suspect during the interaction in court.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  As some additional color, Miranda rights have been aggressively weakened over the last decade, and the current Supreme Court majority appears to really dislike them on their whole. Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010[0] made it so that the suspect has to explicitly invoke their own right to remain silent – simply remaining silent is not enough. And just last year in Vega v. Tekoh[1] the Court decided that it is not a violation of your civil rights if you are not Mirandized, and you therefore cannot sue over it. Together, this basically means that its incumbent on every single citizen to be aware of their Miranda rights, and to know the magic words to say. And you should really, really keep track of if your rights are read to you while you're in custody – police will certainly try to admit un-Mirandized evidence, even after all of that. > Those magic words, legal experts told USA TODAY, must be affirmatively and explicitly stated as, for example, "I want my lawyer and I want to remain silent" or "I want my lawyer and am invoking my right to remain silent." And then you should stay silent. [0] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/01/court_suspects_must_say_they_want_to_be_silent/?page=full http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/20... [1] https://archive.ph/kvKaB https://archive.ph/kvKaB

geomark 4y ago

Are you even legally required to provide ID to a federal officer? I know in some states that you are not required to provide ID to a police officer unless there is evidence you have committed a crime. Quite a few ornery citizens like to video themselves rejecting police officer's requests for ID.

lupire 4y ago
1. Not being required to provide id is not a defense against actively lying to a officer. 2. If you are reasonably suspected of being involved in something illegal, you can be detained until identified by some means.
- geomark 4y ago
  1. The way it usually goes is they don't lie; they just say no when asked to provide ID. 2. It seems like the police officer has to be able to state what crime they suspect has been committed. Standing around looking suspicious is what usually draws attention but it isn't a crime so they just say no when the police ask for ID. But that's for local police in some states. So again, is it different when you refuse ID to a federal officer? I think the answer is no, that there is no federal statute that requires you to identify yourself to a federal officer unless you are suspected of a committing a crime. But IANAL nor a member of law enforcement nor one of those ornery people who like to challenge the police and even hope they will be arrested on false pretenses so they can have fun suing the police.

Zanni 4y ago

Available in sheets, yes; perforated, no. Woz had them perforated at the printer when he had them bound into pads. That's why, I assume, the repeated mention of the agent running his fingers over the perforations.