legal protections during investigations

Status
Not open for further replies.
For example, consider an investigation launched into perceived political adversaries with no intention of filing charges. Insinuating scandalous accusations like "Senator X visits prostitutes" might reduce a politician's influence or harm his career, even without an indictment. If that harm occurs, I would call the investigation punitive.

To be clear, I'm not alleging that such a thing takes place. I'd like to better understand what stops it from taking place.
 
Last edited:
Investigations cost money. They cost time. They use resources. Unless there is a valid reason to believe that Senator X really does visit prostitutes, there are better uses for that money and time and those resources than to conduct an investigation for no reason. Now, the people who are conducting the investigation may be wrong, but they'd be, to be blunt, stupid to conduct such investigations without reason.

And if there is a reason to believe he does, and the investigation shows that he doesn't, then that is to the Senator's benefit. If he does, then he's brought the harm down on himself.

Now, I'll be honest with you. After seeing your definition, I can think of one individual, who is very much in the public eye, who has been investigated in such a way that might be considered punitive by your definition, and whose reputation has suffered as a result. However, it is also true that the faction who conducted the investigations in question has suffered a very serious loss of credibility.

And here's another thing. Look up at the paragraph about. I can think of ONE individual. ONE. ONLY one. Now, have there been others? I'm sure there probably have, been occasional other instances. But it happens FAR less often than I think you are imagining, and the stakes in the only case I can think of were very, very high. What's more, I think in the long run the folks who conducted the investigation are going to suffer just as much as their alleged victim.

It doesn't happen often because the loss of money, time, resources AND CREDIBILITY are just too high.
 
So legal protections do not exist, but you don't consider them to be necessary, partly for logistic and professional reasons. That makes sense to me, and it might be a practical necessity. On the other hand, I'm not sure that overconfidence is wise here.

Is your view common among legal professionals?
 
Of course, there's one thing I should have mentioned. In the case I referenced, there was EVERY intention of filing all the charges they could make stick, had the investigation shown there was any reason to do so. The investigations were not done with the simple intention of creating trouble for the person in question. So I suppose that doesn't really meet your definition.

Where did I say I was a legal professional?
 
I was just curious if your opinion is common among legal professionals.

Also, I'm frequently told that due process applies to legal proceedings, but not the court of public opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Could you square that sentiment with your statement that if "the investigation shows that he doesn't, then that's to the Senator's benefit?"

Also, thanks for your patience! I'm not a lawyer by training and I'm relatively new to the US. So this is all new to me.
 
I have no idea whether my opinion is common or not, and I'm not altogether sure you have completely and correctly understood what my opinion is.

But consider this. For the reasons I have already stated, few entities are going to investigate someone unless they really, truly believe that person is doing or has done something wrong. There is very little purpose in implementing a law that says, "Thou shalt not investigate anyone unless you're going to file charges at the end of it" when (a) the results of an investigation could CLEAR the person of the prospective charges and (b) the percentage of entities who would investigate someone for no reason other than to cause them damage is pretty slim anyway. But do you really think that someone who would be of a mind to conduct that kind of investigation is going to be deterred by such a law? After all, they could always claim that they thought there were valid reasons to investigate and how are you going to prove they didn't?
 
There's a lot of middle ground between having no regulations and the pretty extreme example you've given. For example, laws to prevent fishing expeditions might be useful and might already exist.

Constitutionally, it seems problematic that someone's life can be upended from mere suspicion, more so if the suspect has no opportunity to confront those suspicions.
 
Where on earth are you getting that I am advocating no regulations of any kind?

I don't think you've understood a single word I've said. As such, I'm signing off. You're far too convinced of your own position to accept any suggestions that do not conform to it.
 
This is a strange reaction. My question is pretty straightforward: what sort of regulations and protections exist and/or would be appropriate? I'm not advocating any position at all.
 
And despite my attempts to answer that, you do not appear to have understood what I am saying. Therefore, I am declining to try any further. If you want to consider it a strange reaction that I want to stop beating my head against a stone wall, that is your privilege.
 
I'm still grateful for your time. My understanding of what you've said is that the sort of thing I'm worried about doesn't typically happen (I don't disagree). Feel free to correct that understanding, or not.
 
Last edited:
AppropriateAirport said:
Just among people here. But you could make a stronger statement and assert that there's consensus among legal professionals as well.

For example, public laws are only one way to address the issues I'm raising. It might be more sensible to establish a strong internal policy that's invisible to suspects, who might be more likely to act in bad faith than investigators (on the whole).
Click to expand...


Any government (federal, state, or local) is a far bigger criminal syndicate than the mafia ever was, or MS13 is.
 
My understanding of what you've said is that the sort of thing I'm worried about doesn't typically happen

Okay, at least you understood that much properly.
 
army judge said:
Any government (federal, state, or local) is a far bigger ...
Click to expand...

Any organization has good actors and bad actors. The US government is one of the best run governments out there, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws, and I don't think we should be afraid to examine those flaws. Truth is, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :(
 
Last edited:
AppropriateAirport said:
Any organization has good actors and bad actors. The US government is one of the best run governments out there, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws, and I don't think we should be afraid to examine those flaws. Truth is, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :(
Click to expand...


Taxes.

Why is a so called government confiscating some of your wages better than a king taking some of your wages?

Theft, no matter what name is applied to the theft, as in taxes, is still theft.

You buy a widget from BullMart, and several governments assess taxes (aka - steal as in tax) the transaction between you and BullMart.

Governments are unnecessary.

People may fight, governments wage wars and steal from their citizens.
 
Well, that escalated quickly.

You are going to have to give an actual example if you want an intelligent opinion. Listing all the ways "government" might investigate a person and the limitations of those investigations is too broad. The mayor of a small town standing on the sidewalk in front of a resident's house to see if they complied with the local ordinance regarding trash removal is far and away different than a federal grand jury convened for the purpose of "sticking it to" a political opponent or the FBI wiretapping a suspected terrorist. All have laws that govern them, and those laws are very, very different. Just look at the last cluster of an election if you want examples at the federal level.
 
Sorry for not catching this reply earlier-- I've been busier this week than I've ever been since I left my academic post. Maybe you're still around. If so,

(a) My take-away from this thread is that I need to do a lot more research before I can even begin to ask meaningful questions (or construct useful hypothetical scenarios). But I've got nothing against a list of references to help me get started!

(b) To be clear, I'm not alleging that any of the hypothetical situations in this thread actually take place. I quite literally signed off on an investigation as part of my DHS screening, so the probability that mine was launched illegally (or even in bad faith) is close to zero.

Mods should feel free to remove this thread if I've discussed anything sensitive.
 
Bumping to indicate that I do still check this thread periodically, and I'm still very much interested in this subject. To be clear, I am grateful for the replies I've already received, and I'm looking for understanding, not legal advice.

For example, is there a standard set of publicly available references on this subject?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top