[ThePowerOfFuet]

The fifth amendment prevents forcing anyone to testify against themselves, but does not stop investigations.

You asserted that the 5th should prevent an investigation, but it will do nothing of the sort:

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

[Rebelgecko]

I believe that the current legal situation goes further than just keeping people from being compelled to testify. Pleading the 5th also can't be used as evidence against someone (because that would be a form of compulsion), or even as probable cause.

[doldols]

I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.

Would this not taint any investigation started on the basis of coerced testimony? Why would the exclusionary rule not kick in here?

As far as I understand in a criminal context no adverse inference may be drawn from ones refusal to self-incriminate. How would investigating someone for refusing to self-incriminate to the IRS not be exactly that?

E: Found some related literature which I am reading now https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

[ThePowerOfFuet]

>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.

Again, you did no such thing:

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

An investigation can be initiated, and can proceed, without any testimony whatsoever from the accused.

Which coerced testimony are you attempting to refer to? The cops show up and ask you about your tax return, and you say "". Either they continue to investigate you or they don't, but you have not been coerced into saying anything at all.

[Supermancho]

Obviously, you've been correct the whole way.

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.

This kind of revisionist interpretation, that a poster will engage in to make an altogether different assertion, is not uncommon on HN. Pointing it out gets downvoted, overall making the conversations worse because it's viewed as nitpicking, when it's really just trying to avoid bad faith...wasn't there an article posted about this recently?

[formerkrogemp]

If the government asks if you, Bill the graffiti artist, painted any graffiti on the wall of a giant chicken, and you said no. They could still apply a penalty for lying to an LEO if that exists as a law if they can catch you later.

[doldols]

Of course, but the fifth amendment only protects you from self-incrimination if you explicitly invoke it (or keep your mouth shut). Not if you lie.

[saghm]

Does this mean you could fill in illegal income in your taxes and then for the source put down "I plead the 5th"?

[Bilal_io]

Then that would give them a reason to investigate.

They cannot ask you what you're pleading the 5th for, but they can go investigate it, and nail you when and if they find proof of illegal activity.

[dmurray]

What if everyone included "I plead the fifth" in their tax filings? Perhaps as a form of protest, or because CFAs and distributors of tax-filing software started adding it to their boilerplate?

[ThePowerOfFuet]

>and you said no

You're assuming you have to answer them; the 5th amendment allows you to refuse to respond in any way.

Refusing to respond isn't lying.