OC: Written by B. Wright
10/10/20 = 5:5 We've got this!
Most often people are illegally deprived of their liberty, or separated from their liberty. The physical moment that Austin was removed from his property and in custody, he was removed from his liberty. When someone is in custody for 15 minutes, their natural resistance begins to breakdown. Any evidence collected during this time frame is inadmissible in court. This is a US Supreme Court Standard.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)
Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.[4] As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned." Bullet Point 8 https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107252/miranda-v-arizona/
In deciding whether a person was "in custody," we must examine both the presence and extent of physical and psychological restraints placed upon the person's liberty during the interrogation "in light of whether a `reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his situation' to be one of custody." * Griffin, 922 F.2d at 1347 (quoting Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442, 104 S. Ct. 3138). Source: Paragraph 16 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/289/496/483609/
"Inculpatory evidence is evidence that is used to cause blame to be imputed to;to incriminate. For example, inculpatory statement is a statement which attribute liability on the person making such statement. It incriminates or places guilt or responsibility on someone. Likewise, inculpatory evidence is evidence that establish the guilt of an accused. It indicates that a defendant committed a crime." Source: https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inculpatory/
Inculpatory evidence is typically collected during an investigation that is seemingly a innocuous conversation, like the FBI sitting on Austin's couch discussing his YouTube channel and it's content. Suddenly, that information is within the first third of the "Complaint" that the Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns decided proved enough circumstantially to warrant an arrest.
The combination of the two of these is Judicial Malfeasance, Judicial Misconduct and Miranda Violations.
Due to the fact that the FBI had been in Austin's home prior, having that aforementioned innocuous conversation prior to his arrest, and the complaint that was later filed against Austin contained commentary from those conversations, this should have been referred to the District Attorney to draw up the charges. Failure to do so is a deprivation of due process.
At this point a motion to suppress Inculpatory Evidence, file a complaint with the court regarding the Judicial Misconduct and Malfeasance as well as the Miranda Violations would be my recommended course of action if I were his attorney, but I am not. .
@pennywisedawise @tarynq @kiimayer @qconsciousness @spirit-Admetos @wokemobile @seeleesea11 @invsecactof1951 @brianburns @ibor @quantum17 @binbash @qxpat @lasmokanostra @whatonearthq17 @alicekennedy @krishunter @dalec369 @memeteam17 @ibor @pauljosiesavill @thadrake @newparadigmtt @iq187 @txgodmotheriii @hivebuzz @steampunkmedia @steempress @steampeak @delso @lynds @steemityourway @truthstreammedia @steem-plus @fulltimegeek @frankbacon @franksComs @greatgaribaldi @envisible @q42 @littich @qxpat @exodesigns @digitalsoldier17 @ahough1706 @awakeninggreatly @fishface @forthesamuel @helloall2317 @indigosoul58 @isaacawesomov @jameswwg1wga @kristinaavalon @metatronscube @piriglion101 @roejanfootball @thadrake @tmcs.live