• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: 5th Amendment Incorporation?

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

HB 14 has been pre-filed for the upcoming General Assembly session in Virginia. Could prove to be a very interesting case.

Basically in cases of domestic relations disputes (spousal support, custody, or visitation), this law will allow the courts to treat a refusal to answer questions about immoral conduct as "adverse information". Essentially this bill would penalize your domestic relations position for exercising your 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

Drifting back on topic a bit, I wonder if such a measure could also be applied to questions concerning "prohibited persons" and firearms?

Does this law pass Constitutional muster?

TFred

Summary as introduced:

Domestic relations; self-incrimination; adverse inference.

Provides that in actions filed on or after July 1, 2010, for spousal support, custody, or visitation under Title 16.1 or for divorce or separate maintenance filed under Title 20, the court may draw an adverse inference against any party or witness who refuses to answer a question regarding conduct constituting adultery, sodomy, or buggery outside of marriage, or fornication on the ground that the testimony might be self-incriminating.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
HB 14 has been pre-filed for the upcoming General Assembly session in Virginia. Could prove to be a very interesting case.

Basically in cases of domestic relations disputes (spousal support, custody, or visitation), this law will allow the courts to treat a refusal to answer questions about immoral conduct as "adverse information". Essentially this bill would penalize your domestic relations position for exercising your 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

Drifting back on topic a bit, I wonder if such a measure could also be applied to questions concerning "prohibited persons" and firearms?

Does this law pass Constitutional muster?

TFred

Summary as introduced:

Domestic relations; self-incrimination; adverse inference.

Provides that in actions filed on or after July 1, 2010, for spousal support, custody, or visitation under Title 16.1 or for divorce or separate maintenance filed under Title 20, the court may draw an adverse inference against any party or witness who refuses to answer a question regarding conduct constituting adultery, sodomy, or buggery outside of marriage, or fornication on the ground that the testimony might be self-incriminating.

What part of "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" is so hard to understand?

Now the domestic relations thing may not be a criminal case and therefore not incur the protections against self-incriminations.

I don't believe the law would pass constitutional muster. It's trying to perform an end-around on constitutional protections. It's basically saying "You will tell us your sexual activities and decide you are a bad person or we'll assume you are bad a person".

That law would basically be a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't proposition. I would resist such crap on principle.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

The next question would be if you can be compelled to provide the "incrimminating" information for a civil proceding, would that information then be available for use in subsequent criminal proceeding?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

lockman wrote:
The next question would be if you can be compelled to provide the "incrimminating" information for a civil proceding, would that information then be available for use in subsequent criminal proceeding?
Seeing as fornication
§ 18.2-344.

Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-188, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)
is classified as a criminal act, and the proposed legislation will permit the courts to treat as "adverse information" any refusal to self-incriminate regarding a criminal act, there is no question that the proposed legislation abridges the Constitutional guarantee.

The legislation is a cheap end-around for the sake of saving the expense of hiring a private investigator to get actual proof of infidelity as the grounds for divorce.

And yes, I can easily see the "confession" of a criminal act in a civil case being used as the grounds for bringing a criminal charge - because it has been done so many times in the past.

This is a "sleeper" bill that needs to be watched and opposed vigorously.

stay safe.

skidmark
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but § 18.2-344 has been held unconstitutional.

However, I suspect your point remains valid.

Can't find a cite for a case with that decision. I know it has not been prosecuted in a long time, with the "chatter" being that it would be found to be unconstitutional.

Further, if it were ruled unconstitutional the GA would repeal it. They have a history of doing so. It's still active law.

No matter what, this is an encroachment attempt that needs to be nipped in the bud.

stay safe.

skidmark
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

But, is the new bill about criminal matters? It sounds like a civil matter.

I recall reading a case or article about immunity. The short story was that in situations where there was possible criminal repercussions, you could be compelled to testify if the government forced immunity on you. The idea being that the immunity removed the possibility of being prosecuted for whatever might be revealed, thus you have no valid reason to not testify.

I'm guessing a wily court could figure out how, during a civil proceeding, saying something incriminatingcouldn't be usedlater for a criminal prosecution, thus either testify or have your silence held against you in the civil matter. It wouldn't take a few judges twenty minutes to invent some exception if they wanted to.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I wonder if we are maybe worrying too soon.

I imagine there are more than a couple politicians who will look at that bill and say, "Oh, $hit. I might be in that situation one day. Oh, hell no."
 

AB

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
240
Location
ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
imported post

Citizen wrote:
I wonder if we are maybe worrying too soon.

I imagine there are more than a couple politicians who will look at that bill and say, "Oh, $hit. I might be in that situation one day. Oh, hell no."

Don't count on it, unless you want to loose your rights. No violation to small, watch this:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swV_eOrAp9Y[/url]

While it is a different situation, it certainlymakes the point.
 
Top