• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

19 year old son in trouble with employer

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

mominneed46

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA
My son and 4-5 of his co-workers have been caught taking money from the store. No charges have been made yet. The company investigator pressed him and the others to write confessions and he stated that he has taken approximately $1,000 over the past year at this job. They convinced him to write the statement by telling him that not all will be prosecuted but he is currently suspended from work. They are to call him Friday to let him know of their next step with him. If they choose to proceed with pressing charges, is the confession going to be allowed to be used and what kind of punishment will he be facing?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


tranquility

Senior Member
His confession is not admissible in court.
Why?

(Don't say hearsay unless you want to explain how this was not "contemporaneous with the main fact and reasonably connected with it". )

Besides that's just to prove the facts as admitted. If we seperate the offer to prove the truth of the statement and, instead, decided to use it for motive or intent, what then?
 
No matter how the confession was elicited, he still has his right to protection under the 5th amendment. That does not apply only to law enforcement. He had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to be mirandized prior to any accusatory questions being asked.

If the "investigator for the company" thought he knew what he was doing, he was sorrily mistaken. This roundabout, back-door justice doesn't fly.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
No matter how the confession was elicited, he still has his right to protection under the 5th amendment. That does not apply only to law enforcement. He had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to be mirandized prior to any accusatory questions being asked.If the "investigator for the company" thought he knew what he was doing, he was sorrily mistaken. This roundabout, back-door justice doesn't fly.
Could you please post the state stat/case law to support this assertion?
 
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I have read this and re-read this, to make certain that no where in this amendment, does it state that this applies only to law enforcement, the judicial system, or any other legal process.

A person has the right to remain silent. Anything elicited from this young man may be retained by company to place in his employee file, so they can make sure to never employ him again, but they cannot use any statements, verbal, written, coerced, or otherwise, against him, in a criminal investigation.

This is no different than a rent-a-cop eliciting information from a suspected burglar of the property they are watching, that got caught trying to break in. If anyone believes a criminal act has occurred, they should first contact the police and file a report. Not take it upon themselves to violate the civil and constitutional rights of a soon-to-be-ex-employee.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
I have read this and re-read this, to make certain that no where in this amendment, does it state that this applies only to law enforcement, the judicial system, or any other legal process.

A person has the right to remain silent. Anything elicited from this young man may be retained by company to place in his employee file, so they can make sure to never employ him again, but they cannot use any statements, verbal, written, coerced, or otherwise, against him, in a criminal investigation.

This is no different than a rent-a-cop eliciting information from a suspected burglar of the property they are watching, that got caught trying to break in. If anyone believes a criminal act has occurred, they should first contact the police and file a report. Not take it upon themselves to violate the civil and constitutional rights of a soon-to-be-ex-employee.
Please post a link to the site where you obtained this quote. A paragraph taken from an unknown source is not sufficient.
 
He had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to be mirandized prior to any accusatory questions being asked.

Holy cow, are you 'special' or something? Miranda doesn't apply to private investigators, or parents, or even undercover police, and he DID have a right to remain silent and chose to not use that right.

Miranda applies to custodial questioning by a known agent of law enforcement, not Joe Schmoe making you admit to dipping from the till.
 
Last edited:
I have read this and re-read this, to make certain that no where in this amendment, does it state that this applies only to law enforcement, the judicial system, or any other legal process.
I was trying to describe this succinctly so you could understand it. From the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:

The whole reason the Supreme Court came up with [Miranda] was to combat the police dominated atmosphere of a custodial interrogation. Police have the home field advantage during a custodial interview... [t]o balance out that coercive atmosphere, the police have to let the suspect know that he has a right against self-incrimination.
[Miranda only applies when] a known law enforcement officer conducts a custodial interrogation... Cops + Custody + Interrogation = Miranda.
I am not sure what your qualifications are, but suggesting that non-enforcement parties are bound by Miranda makes you seem less-than-credible.
 
Last edited:

cyjeff

Senior Member
I have been in LP... and have questioned many a convicted shoplifter.

None were read Miranda... at least not by me.
 

Ozark_Sophist

Senior Member
Your logic is flawed. You: "Anything anyone ever writes or signs something cannot have that document used against them in court because of the fifth amendment unless they were made aware of it prior to making the statement/threat/diary entry/confession/letter to the editor admitting they are a serial killer with the location of the bodies."

Kid was not even detained, let alone arrested. Statement is admissable so long as those present can testify to the effect the kid wrote it.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Why?

(Don't say hearsay unless you want to explain how this was not "contemporaneous with the main fact and reasonably connected with it". )

Besides that's just to prove the facts as admitted. If we seperate the offer to prove the truth of the statement and, instead, decided to use it for motive or intent, what then?
It also fits the hearsay exception of a statement against interest and a statement of a party opponent. And probably more. So I await the explanation of why there is belief that it would not admissible.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top