Hacker News Reader

Comment by CodeAndCuffs | Hacker News Reader

Lying in court is always* illegal. Lying in general, e.g "I didn't steal anything", "I only had 2 beers", "These aren't my pants", is not inherently illegal. All of these are lies I've been told.

As a cop, if you get caught lying, i.e. intentionally false testimony in court, your career is effectively over. Any defense attorney can bring that one time you got caught lying up in court, discounting your entire testimony on every case forever, making you useless. No matter how bad you screw up as a cop, the number 1 rule is don't lie about it in court.

*Maybe not in some jurisdictions? But realistically yeah, always

View on HN

> Lying in court is always* illegal.

So if you plead not guilty to some crime, and they find you guilty, do you get prosecuted for lying in court with your plead as well as for the original crime?

I believe that entering a plea doesn't count as testimony, thus isnt subject to perjury laws. Most of my cases were plea deals before trial, or were cases where the defendant did not testify. Saying "not guilty" also doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do anything, you may honestly believe at that point, and make the argument, that the thing you did was not illegal.

What about Alford pleas? I thought they existed so that you could reserve the right to appeal or avoid a civil action by avoiding an admission of guilt while acknowledging that you will likely be convicted.

IANAL but from what my lawyer friends have told me an Alford plea is practically the same as a guilty plea for purposes of appeal. In other words, it's very difficult to appeal an Alford plea. Seek legal advice before considering an Alford plea.

A plea is not a statement of fact, is it? It's your opinion and true by definition.

Pleading isn't considered "testimonial".

Typically, one is only "sworn in" prior to giving testimony.

In Brazilian (Roman?) law, you can lie if you are one of the sides, not if you are a witness.

> "These aren't my pants"

I'd love to hear the context for that one :)

Guessing there were drugs in one or more pockets.

Never works. I was driving my friend’s car. I had a tire burst on me. I pulled over to the side of the road. Cops showed up in a few minutes and charged me with reckless driving. Made me take three different breathalyzers. I hadn’t been drinking so obviously it showed “well below the legal limit”. But my friend apparently had an empty beer can in the back.

You can never say it wasn’t yours, apparently. In any case, paid the fine. Oh well.

Is it illegal to have an empty beer can in your car?

A couple of German exchange students once told me that you can drink in a car while the car is moving as long as the driver doesn't drink anything.

In the US, it is.

Yea...US DUI laws are "interesting". I make every effort to not drink and drive, but I definitely don't let anyone in a car I'm driving have an open drink. I've seen way to many 'you just handed your drink to the guy in the back seat' scenes to risk that.

Not everywhere, and it should be nowhere. Which states don't specify that there needs to be alcohol in the container? That seems like a bizarre last, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

You have to understand, much of he law that pertains to using a motor vehicle in the US is a pretense to legitimize traffic stops, which are then used for some other purpose (mostly busting drivers for more serious crimes, or else extracting fines from out-of-towners/minorities).

What is the point of having traffic stops of this kind? For example, why can't you just have traffic checks as a normal activity? In some countries (Botswana is an interesting example) the police stop you on public holidays and give you flyers and tell you "drive safely".

The protection from unreasonable search and seizure is taken to mean that the police can't stop your car without a reason. Since the justice system really really wants to be able to stop your car at will, anything at all can be a "reason".

That would violate our constitution. These sorts of traffic stops are either a bug or a feature, depending who you talk to. I feel that in the absence of clearly reckless driving the police should be unable to stop you. I view these sorts of stops as government run amuck, and a police state. Many Americans would agree, which is why we have constitutional protections beyond most countries (in theory at least). The problem is that hinders the police's ability to solve cases, which is where the "hack" comes in.

Our system allows police to selectively apply traffic rules. This means that the people who find them onerous and can fight back against them tend to be avoided, while more vulnerable people are subject to them more often.

You might remember the protests in Ferguson, MO, after Michael Brown was m̶u̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ killed. A federal investigation later revealed the tense police/public relations under which that incident took place: the jurisdiction was essentially using the traffic laws to extract rent, overwhelmingly from black residents. A traffic citation would require attending court (often without access to a vehicle); if a court date was missed, additional fines and an arrest warrant were issued, which of course the person would only become aware of during the next traffic stop. Police were encouraged to increase stops and citations to make up for lowered taxes. It's regressive fiscal policy you see popular among American conservatives because it shifts the tax burden off of people who are then more likely to vote for them, onto people "deserving" of punishment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguso...

afaik even the driver may drink. But he is not allowed to be drunk (measured by some test).

That's state dependant. Here is determined by the total volume of alcohol. A beer with a few sips left wouldn't count

Hitching in the 80s, I got picked up by this guy who was drinking beer while driving. That worried me some. But I was shocked when he threw the empty out the window. And when I commented on it, he pointed out that littering was the safest option.

Here's an "unusual" one I read about recently:

> He denied having any ID, claimed he could not remember his Social Security umber, and said his name was “Mr. Horrell.”

> After police found a photo ID in the vehicle, he claimed the person pictured was his “identical cousin.”

---

He was arrested and charged with "privacy invasion and refusal to identify himself". He was acquitted of the former and convicted of the latter -- only to have it later overturned.

So, in this particular case, I suppose he won.

[0]: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/24168-court-refusa...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com