[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.

[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.