Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> No, but it IS *a* situation the founding fathers cared very much about.
>>
>> Again, which specific parts of the Constitution do you object to?

> As if you do not know or remember from years past, why should criminals be able to try to
> avoid discovery of their crime, capture or punishment, by pleading the Fifth, or to rely

> upon the Fourth Amendment (against illegal search and seizure without specific warrant),

So, basically, you disagree with the Bill of Rights.

As for the search and seizure, well, that should be obvious, given that 
things can "find" their way into your possession if a cop is so
inclined. As for pleading the 5th, why should an  innocent person help
build a prosecutor's case by admitting to things that do not necessarily
indicate you committed a crime?

> or to have lawyers keep them from revealing practically any information, relevant or
> irrelevant, such as, Police officer: "Were you drinking tonight?" Drunk, driving
> suspiciously: "I don't have to answer that." or "I want to call my lawyer"? Why must the

No, you don't; you must submit to a breath  test, though.

> discovery, capture or punishment? Attorney: "He burped during the breathalyzer." "An
> attorney was not present during questioning." and having such valuable evidence not

An interesting article the other day in the paper; man released after 40
years imprisonment for a "confession" gotten without an attorney
present.

I know, it doesn't bother you...

> something I've done, I'll damn well tell them, even if it was something wrong or

Well, that's nice.

I'm sure everyone would do the same, yes?

Mike