4 ms·

I'm not a legal expert, but all this seems to check out with US law. Americans need to remember that some of their constitutional rights don't really apply at p

by tavavex 2mo ago

I'm not a legal expert, but all this seems to check out with US law. Americans need to remember that some of their constitutional rights don't really apply at ports of entry by design. This inconvenient truth for the land of the free has existed for a long time, this situation is just drawing attention to it. Their powers are far-reaching.

anon84873628 2mo ago
Furthermore, "the law" in this area is currently different in different Federal circuit court jurisdictions...
hylaride 2mo ago
Fun fact, there is a long standing exemption to the unreasonable search and seizure protection laws if you're out on a boat (it may only be on the open ocean and Great Lakes, though IANAL). One of the earliest Supreme Court rulings essentially said that without it, it would be impossible for the US to enforce tariffs, which were the main source of revenue at the time. Anybody who boats often enough has been boarded by the coast guard for various safety checks that allows them to poke around and there's little you can do about it.
- klardotsh 2mo ago
  Any “navigable waters” fall under this jurisdiction which at a minimum includes all salt water and the Great Lakes, plus a few other odds and ends rivers and so forth. Indeed, almost all state and landside federal law goes out the window on a boat - a frequently bumped into example by boaters here in Washington is getting a civil penalty flavored reminder from USCG that cannabis is still (for whatever reasons) federally an illegal substance, and having it on a boat at all is an offense (with larger amounts or future violations escalating as far as seizure of the vessel). Marine laws are nuts.
formerly_proven 2mo ago
The US / common law jurisdictions typically only have very light self-incrimination protections. The 5th amendment in the US only protects against self-incriminating testimonial. That's it. In most other jurisdictions (i.e. civil law) it's perfectly legal for the accused to destroy evidence (assuming you're not committing any other crimes in doing so, like breaking and entering, property crime etc.), seizure being ordered or not, while it remains illegal to destroy evidence at the behest of someone else. I.e. civil law usually doesn't criminalize self-protective conduct. That's true even in e.g. Japan.
- fluoridation 2mo ago
  That's interesting. Where can I read more about this?
  - formerly_proven 2mo ago
    Non-US-centric legal topics are surprisingly often a blind spot in enwiki, this is one of them. In civil law the core principle for this is "nemo tenetur (se ipsum accusare)", but the reifications are wildly different in the jurisdictions. Here are some examples: - Japan (South Korea has practically the same law word-for-word): https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581/en#je_pt2ch7at2 https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581/e... ("...relating to a criminal case of another person" i.e. this is not applicable if you do it in your own case). Likewise article 103, harboring is not illegal if you're related. - Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p2423 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... (this also includes harboring and makes it not illegal for family, which is a typical provision in civilized law) - The usual suspects, Italy, Poland, Austria (of course), Switzerland, ... even the Russian criminal code has pretty much the same provisions - Also the usual suspects: France ("guilletoine them all") and UK (common law) do not have this Curiously, China quite closely matches the US. This is essentially one aspect of Hobbesian self-preservation, I don't believe enwiki even mentions this idea anywhere. Another aspect of self-preservation is that -obviously- the mere act of escaping from prison or evading arrest can't be a criminal offense, and to varying degrees civil law jurisdictions recognize that.
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      Huh. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't mention it either, just has a brief blurb somewhere defining the Latin phrase.
- thrawa8387336 2mo ago
  Correct me but in civil law even intent is treated very different or non-existent

by tavavex 2mo ago

anon84873628 2mo ago

Furthermore, "the law" in this area is currently different in different Federal circuit court jurisdictions...

hylaride 2mo ago

Fun fact, there is a long standing exemption to the unreasonable search and seizure protection laws if you're out on a boat (it may only be on the open ocean and Great Lakes, though IANAL). One of the earliest Supreme Court rulings essentially said that without it, it would be impossible for the US to enforce tariffs, which were the main source of revenue at the time. Anybody who boats often enough has been boarded by the coast guard for various safety checks that allows them to poke around and there's little you can do about it.

klardotsh 2mo ago
Any “navigable waters” fall under this jurisdiction which at a minimum includes all salt water and the Great Lakes, plus a few other odds and ends rivers and so forth. Indeed, almost all state and landside federal law goes out the window on a boat - a frequently bumped into example by boaters here in Washington is getting a civil penalty flavored reminder from USCG that cannabis is still (for whatever reasons) federally an illegal substance, and having it on a boat at all is an offense (with larger amounts or future violations escalating as far as seizure of the vessel). Marine laws are nuts.

formerly_proven 2mo ago

The US / common law jurisdictions typically only have very light self-incrimination protections. The 5th amendment in the US only protects against self-incriminating testimonial. That's it. In most other jurisdictions (i.e. civil law) it's perfectly legal for the accused to destroy evidence (assuming you're not committing any other crimes in doing so, like breaking and entering, property crime etc.), seizure being ordered or not, while it remains illegal to destroy evidence at the behest of someone else. I.e. civil law usually doesn't criminalize self-protective conduct. That's true even in e.g. Japan.

fluoridation 2mo ago
That's interesting. Where can I read more about this?
- formerly_proven 2mo ago
  Non-US-centric legal topics are surprisingly often a blind spot in enwiki, this is one of them. In civil law the core principle for this is "nemo tenetur (se ipsum accusare)", but the reifications are wildly different in the jurisdictions. Here are some examples: - Japan (South Korea has practically the same law word-for-word): https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581/en#je_pt2ch7at2 https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581/e... ("...relating to a criminal case of another person" i.e. this is not applicable if you do it in your own case). Likewise article 103, harboring is not illegal if you're related. - Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p2423 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... (this also includes harboring and makes it not illegal for family, which is a typical provision in civilized law) - The usual suspects, Italy, Poland, Austria (of course), Switzerland, ... even the Russian criminal code has pretty much the same provisions - Also the usual suspects: France ("guilletoine them all") and UK (common law) do not have this Curiously, China quite closely matches the US. This is essentially one aspect of Hobbesian self-preservation, I don't believe enwiki even mentions this idea anywhere. Another aspect of self-preservation is that -obviously- the mere act of escaping from prison or evading arrest can't be a criminal offense, and to varying degrees civil law jurisdictions recognize that.
  - fluoridation 2mo ago
    Huh. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't mention it either, just has a brief blurb somewhere defining the Latin phrase.
thrawa8387336 2mo ago
Correct me but in civil law even intent is treated very different or non-existent