Could you be arrested for publicly admitting a crime? eg Brian Cowen

rubadub

If you publicly admit to breaking the law could you be arrested? or brought in for questioning etc?
Would it depend on the crime?
Brian Cowen admitted to smoking cannabis (I have no problem with this) but could he be brought in and questioned? is there a time limit for the crime, he did it in the 70's, but what if he said he was smoking last night? they would want to know who the dealer is.

What if he said he robbed a house in the 70's or claimed to kill a man?

Tzetze

Smoking a spliff is different to murder, not just in the obvious sense, but also with regards to culpability.

I don't claim to even have an inkling of the law surrounding this, but from what I believe... it's not illegal to smoke or to have smoked cannabis, it's illegal to be in possesion of a controlled substance.

You could tell the cops that you smoked dope for your entire life until today, but if you don't actually possess anything illegal, then there's nothing they can do.

Brian's in the clear.

rubadub

Tzetze wrote:

it's illegal to be in possesion of a controlled substance.

I presume he was in possession of it, i.e. in his hand momentarily.

What if he said he handled 20kg of cocaine back in the 70's?

KTRIC

If he doesn't actually have the cocaine now then he is not in possesion of it and is therefore not breaking any laws.

seamus

rubadub wrote:

I presume he was in possession of it, i.e. in his hand momentarily.

What if he said he handled 20kg of cocaine back in the 70's?

Prove it.

Admission of guilt is not evidence of it.

I murder pensioners while they sleep. Arrest me and throw me in jail. Oh wait, you have no evidence.

My point is, that even if someone says they did something, that's not necessarily sufficient to have them arrested and convicted.

When someone gives a long and lengthy statement admitting to a crime, Gardai have to go and back that up by gathering evidence that corrobarates the statement.

A person is always innocent until *proven* guilty. A person can make a full and frank confession to the Gardai, but then plead "not guilty" when brought up in court.

As far as I'm aware, now and again in the US, people have come forward and given big and detailed confessions to police of heinous crimes, only to have been found nowhere near the scenes when the crimes took place and not involved in the crime at all. They're just loonies.

mikemac

seamus wrote:

As far as I'm aware, now and again in the US, people have come forward and given big and detailed confessions to police of heinous crimes, only to have been found nowhere near the scenes when the crimes took place and not involved in the crime at all. They're just loonies.

Exactly.
An example is the guy who confessed to killing Jonbenet Ramsey but it turned out he was just obsessed with the case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/16/national/main1901342.shtml

rubadub

seamus wrote:

As far as I'm aware, now and again in the US, people have come forward and given big and detailed confessions to police of heinous crimes, only to have been found nowhere near the scenes when the crimes took place and not involved in the crime at all. They're just loonies.

Yes I have heard of such cases. nutters

I just thought they might be able to bring him in for questioning at least. On TV you always hear "I am arresting you on suspicion of..." I thought admitting/claiming something might be regarded as "suspicious"

I murder pensioners while they sleep. Arrest me and throw me in jail. Oh wait, you have no evidence.

What are all those heads in your freezer

seamus

rubadub wrote:

I just thought they might be able to bring him in for questioning at least. On TV you always hear "I am arresting you on suspicion of..." I thought admitting/claiming something might be regarded as "suspicious"

It is usually. It's easy to spot stuff for which you may be onto something, and other things that would you have no hope even getting close to any kind of legal action. I would admit to speeding from time to time. But there's no way based on that admission, that a conviction could be secured, even if I was questioned about my admission. And Gardai would see that.

The loopholes and rigamarole involved in hauling Biffo in for questioning would be far more effort than it's worth. His solicitor would tell him to "say nothing", and he'd walk off a few hours later. Then some poor plod would probably receive a demotion.

If on the other hand, a person (even vaguely) admitted to having some involvement in a death (accidental or otherwise), it's likely that he would be brought in for some questioning.

Turner

Just to point out that you cannot be arrested for smoking a spliff or having one in your possession. There is no power of arrest for it.

johnnyskeleton

Chief--- wrote:

Just to point out that you cannot be arrested for smoking a spliff or having one in your possession. There is no power of arrest for it.

Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, s25

(2) Where with reasonable cause a member of the Garda Síochána,

( a ) suspects that an offence under this Act, other than an offence under section 15, has been committed or attempted, and

( b ) suspects a person of having committed the offence or having made the attempt,

then if the member,

( c ) with reasonable cause suspects that the person unless he is arrested either will abscond for the purposes of evading justice or will obstruct the course of justice, or

( d ) having enquired of the person, has reasonable doubts as to the person's identity or place of abode, or

( e ) having enquired of the person, knows that the person does not ordinarily reside in the State, or has reasonable doubts as to whether the person so resides.

he may arrest the person without warrant.

dermot_sheehan

Power of arrest only exists for offences other then section 15 (possession with intent to supply) if the guard believes the person is not giving correct details. So if a guard stops you smoking a spliff in the street and you give him your correct details and have ID to back it up, he can't arrest you.

Possession of more serious drugs then cannabis has a penalty of more then 5 years so s. 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1997 kicks in giving a general power of arrest to anyone.

With regard to spliffo, it's likely he was smoking before 1977 so would probably be caught be the previous legislation (Dangerous Drugs Act 1934 I think), in any case possession of cannabis is a summary only offence so complaint must be made to a district judge within 6 months.

Our man in Havana

Brian would have no worries being a solicitor himself.

Turner

gabhain7 wrote:

Power of arrest only exists for offences other then section 15

There is a power of arrest for S.15, obviously.

dermot_sheehan

oh yes, meant to say general power of arrest for s 15, for everything else only if conditions are met

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote:

Power of arrest only exists for offences other then section 15 (possession with intent to supply) if the guard believes the person is not giving correct details. So if a guard stops you smoking a spliff in the street and you give him your correct details and have ID to back it up, he can't arrest you.

Unless he reasonably believes that that ID is fake. Or if he believes you will abscond for the purposes of evading justice or will obstruct the course of justice, or if he knows that the person does not ordinarily reside in the State, or has reasonable doubts as to whether the person so resides.

But in any case, there is a power of arrest for possession of cannabis.

gabhain7 wrote:

Possession of more serious drugs then cannabis has a penalty of more then 5 years so s. 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1997 kicks in giving a general power of arrest to anyone.

Or having a lot of cannabis.