Fake ID Troubles

D

do it up

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Messages
339
ok here we go, lets say someone had a fake id in the past and lost it over a year ago. suddenly a hearing request from the RMV comes in the mail and this person is now 21. they bring him in and claim hes goin to lose his license and all for 6 months, criminal charges and the whole 9 yards. If the person wasn't caught using the fake, and didn't have it on him, then is this a just cause? Just because it was found they have a right to take away his driving rights for 6 months and make him pay a 500 dollar fine? It seems like there must be some way out of this.

The detective that gave the interrogation said that this person has 10 days to come up with more concrete evidence on where he got the id from and then they will drop the fine and suspension of driving. Are they bluffing or can they really get away with that?? Any help would be greatly appreciated. If you need more information let me know. Thanks.
 
Deny owning it?

Also, please get a lawyer -- it sounds really bogus that they can suspend your liscense for having a fake ID. The cop is bluffing, it's pretty questionable whether they can do anything.
 
^^^^^^
Exactly.

Personally, I would have gotten pissed and claimed identity theft if it had my picture on it. While getting initially interragated and admitting to possesing this id was incriminating and lets hope this did not happen.

I am curious in what context the id came into the poilce possession though. This could have alot of bearing on why they are trying to press charges. If the id was used by the individual and was confiscated and later turned into the authorities, then they have a good case.

If you admitted to it or you were caught with it in your possesion in the past then you are definitely facing charges for it and I am not sure if the price of a lawyer would be worth fighting a case with alot of hard evidence. If they found the id on someone else and they have no real proof then a lawyer is in order.
 
Was the fake id this persons actual ID that had been altered, or was it a document that had been completely forged? Was the ID taken by a store clerk, bouncer, or police officer, or was it just lost?
 
tell him you aint no fucking sheep and baaaaa at his ass like tony fucking montana!

its okay for a cop to lie to get info.
 
twas not in your possesion, someone just happaned to find a pictures you lost one time and now they are using your identity


those damn identity theives!


you could walk on this one easily and represent yourself!
 
i suck, i already admitted to having it made for me over a year ago, i told them i was coming home from a party in boston and a guy asked if i wanted one and then had it made...i wish i came here sooner and i could have denied the whole thing..got my notice that my license is being suspended in 9 days today.. i never did say i actually used the id and she wouldnt tell me where she got it.. m going to call her up and claim i lost the id and someone must have found it and plead with her to not suspend my license.. hope that works
 
doesnt matter that your 21. maybe u could make something up like its for a movie prop or some stupid shit like that.

but yea u must have been an asshole to the cop. i got caught trying to buy beer with a fake id when i was 17. i was drunk and arguing with the guy to get my fake id back cause he took my fake id. so he then called the police on me lol. so then they search me and nothing on me. so then went to the police station and bullshitted with them for like 45 minutes and just kind of chilled then shook the mans hand and he told me not to worry about it and he would tell the officer not to do anything to me. lol and then nothing ever happeneed.

so yea dont be an asshole
 
i wasnt an asshole, i lost this id over a year ago, i dont understand why this is coming up now
 
So it was your real name on this ID with your real picture? If not then where did they find that info? Doesn't matter if you weren't using it because I believe the simple possession of a false ID is enough to lose your real one for 6 months. You shouldn't have said anything but I don't really know how your situation was to tell you what you shouldnt have done.
 
unless the officers advised you of your miranda rights, it is likely that any admission you made will be inadmissible. Also, if they didn't formally charge you with anything they could very possibly have violated your right against false imprisonment. You must get an attorney if you want to beat this. If you cannot afford one, you have the right to have one appointed, so next time you talk to any authorities, be very clear that you wish to have an attorney appointed to you and you won't make any statements without first consulting with an attorney.

However, if you can afford an attorney but simply don't want to, you won't be able to have one appointed. It is possible that a lawyer would be more expensive than the fine and court costs for simply pleading no contest, which might be wiser under some circumstances.
 
autopilot said:
unless the officers advised you of your miranda rights, it is likely that any admission you made will be inadmissible. Also, if they didn't formally charge you with anything they could very possibly have violated your right against false imprisonment. You must get an attorney if you want to beat this. If you cannot afford one, you have the right to have one appointed, so next time you talk to any authorities, be very clear that you wish to have an attorney appointed to you and you won't make any statements without first consulting with an attorney.

However, if you can afford an attorney but simply don't want to, you won't be able to have one appointed. It is possible that a lawyer would be more expensive than the fine and court costs for simply pleading no contest, which might be wiser under some circumstances.
Click to expand...

that miranda right thing is bullshit. they definatly don't have to do that anymore. i've been arrested twice and never heard a fucking word about my "rights"
 
If you are suspected of a criminal offense, the police have to read you your miranda rights, prior to asking any questions, or taking any statements. If they fail to do this, the statements can't be used in court.
 
Yepyepwoah, Miranda is still in full effect. It is constitutionally mandated by the 5th Amendment's protection from self-incrimination.

Forgotten is a little bit off the mark. He said that the police are required to provide Miranda warnings to any person they suspect of a crime. This is not wholly accurate. The police may ask any person any question at any time, UNLESS they have taken that person into custody. Once that person has been taken into custody, Miranda warnings are required before the police may question the person. But a police officer can walk up to any random person on the street and ask them any question they want so long as they don't detain the person.

Miranda warnings are required only in cases of custodial interrogation. This means that the warnings must be given only if a suspect is in custody and the police wish to question the suspect. If the police questions a suspect without advising him of his Miranda rights, then the suspect's responses to those questions will be inadmissible in court.

However, the police are not required to prevent a defendant from volunteering incriminating statements. If a suspect makes incriminating statements to which the officers remain silent, Miranda warnings are not required.

The police are not required to advise a person of his Miranda rights in order to have the right to arrest. The police are not required to advise a person of his Miranda rights after the person is arrested in order to make the arrest lawful. The failure by a law enforcement officer to advise an arrestee of his Miranda rights does not invalidate the arrest in any way.
 
Last edited:
autopilot said:
Yepyepwoah, Miranda is still in full effect. It is constitutionally mandated by the 5th Amendment's protection from self-incrimination.

Forgotten is a little bit off the mark. He said that the police are required to provide Miranda warnings to any person they suspect of a crime. This is not wholly accurate. The police may ask any person any question at any time, UNLESS they have taken that person into custody. Once that person has been taken into custody, Miranda warnings are required before the police may question the person. But a police officer can walk up to any random person on the street and ask them any question they want so long as they don't detain the person.

Miranda warnings are required only in cases of custodial interrogation. This means that the warnings must be given only if a suspect is in custody and the police wish to question the suspect. If the police questions a suspect without advising him of his Miranda rights, then the suspect's responses to those questions will be inadmissible in court.

However, the police are not required to prevent a defendant from volunteering incriminating statements. If a suspect makes incriminating statements to which the officers remain silent, Miranda warnings are not required.

The police are not required to advise a person of his Miranda rights in order to have the right to arrest. The police are not required to advise a person of his Miranda rights after the person is arrested in order to make the arrest lawful. The failure by a law enforcement officer to advise an arrestee of his Miranda rights does not invalidate the arrest in any way.
Click to expand...

yeah they never asked me anything i just got arrested. my bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top