Timeline for Can evidence a person gives to aid an investigation then be used to prosecute that person for an unrelated crime?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2022 at 15:51 | history | edited | MSalters |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 28, 2022 at 3:26 | comment | added | nasch | This is one reason the advice is given "don't ever talk to the police." | |
| Feb 27, 2022 at 22:36 | comment | added | Mast | Yes. Recommended watching: James Duane from Regent University School of Law youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE | |
| Feb 27, 2022 at 19:53 | comment | added | DerekG | @Nat, I find this point interesting because the purported point of the statute of limitations is to prevent the prosecution of crimes where evidence cannot be reliably obtained due to the time that has passed. But in at least example 1.) though the evidence was collected at a time wherein if the crime had been committed concurrently, with the evidence collection it would no longer be prosecutable, the fact that the crime was committed more recently makes the same evidence admissible | |
| Feb 27, 2022 at 19:47 | comment | added | Nat | Statutes of limitations might be indirectly relevant. Without checking, I'd doubt that someone could be charged for things like speeding long after the fact. Plus in the case of sparsely-enforced laws like anti-speeding, going after someone long after the fact might be deemed malicious prosecution, or something similar. | |
| Feb 27, 2022 at 6:56 | answer | added | Flydog57 | timeline score: 9 | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 0:41 | comment | added | David Siegel | @gnasher729 If the cam or its recording media is handed over that is likely to count as consent for a general search of it, at least,in the absence of a specific limitation agreed to by both parties. Consent generally opens things up for a very general search. | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 0:07 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Feb 25, 2022 at 23:23 | history | edited | bdb484 |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 25, 2022 at 20:26 | answer | added | David Siegel | timeline score: 14 | |
| Feb 25, 2022 at 19:18 | comment | added | gnasher729 | In the dash cam case, checking what the driver did all day, and not just at the time of the hit-and-run, might be a search without search warrant and therefore illegal. | |
| Feb 25, 2022 at 17:24 | comment | added | DerekG | While this may be true in some interpretations of reasonable, I suspect that it is not apparent to the people in these examples that the evidence may be used against them, so "reasonable" is meant in the sense of what a person could reasonably be expected to understand as the uses for the surrendered evidence. | |
| Feb 25, 2022 at 16:42 | answer | added | bdb484 | timeline score: 25 | |
| Feb 25, 2022 at 16:35 | comment | added | bdb484 | The premise here seems faulty. It is not "reasonable" to assume that you can limit the investigations in which police will use evidence you hand over. | |
| Feb 25, 2022 at 16:28 | history | edited | DerekG | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 127 characters in body
|
| Feb 25, 2022 at 16:08 | history | edited | DerekG | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Feb 25, 2022 at 16:03 | history | asked | DerekG | CC BY-SA 4.0 |