FORUM DESCRIPTION Discussion Board Two - Chapter 7- Criminal & Cyber Law Despite the fact that your business, "And They're Off Go-Kart Emporium, was recently sued by a customer who was injured on site, you were recently able to settle the case in a fair manner and are moving forward with renewed confidence that your business is operating well A few weeks later. Investigator Michael Roberts from the Internal Revenue arrives at your business and notifies you that he would like you to come in and speak with him regarding your failure to pay state sales tax. He schedules an appointment with you and would like you to bring in any tax records for the past 5 years regarding this issue. He notes that you will not need an attorney, as you are not under arrest, but only currently under investigation. He indicates that your cooperation in this matter will be taken into consideration and will be to your benefit should there be any future penaties in this case You arrive at the interview at the arranged time and you provide the tax information that Investigator Roberts requested. The interview begins and although he seems nice, you get an uneasy feeling about the process and his questions. Although you know you have done nothing wrong, you get the sense that Investigator Roberts believes that you have committed a crime of some kind. Since you have no idea where the conversation is leading, you really feel that it would be in your best interest to speak with an attorney. You pause and tell the Investigator that you think you should speak to a lawyer before going any turther with the interview. His demeanor changes and he says, "Wow, I was really hoping that you were going to cooperate." Required Discussion Points Note: Create your Main Post response in accordance with the following four questions. Use each question as the title to each section of your response. Make sure to address all of the relevant legal principles and factual issues pertaining to each question Briefly discuss the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and note how it may or may not be applicable to your situation 2. identity, define and discuss any relevant Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment protections and discuss the rules and exceptions to Mirands and how they might apply to your new predicament. 3. Discuss what if any negative impact a violation of your Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights will have on the use of any statement you may have made to Investigator Roberts or any additional proof that the police might have obtained, as the result of your interview, at the time of trial. Can this evidence be excluded? Why, or why not? Identify, define and discuss any relevant legal theories 4 in light of the aforementioned, should you cease the interview and re-schedule so you can have your lawyer present for any continuation of the interview? Why or why not? Discuss any relevant legal theories that may be applicable in this regard IR Type here to search - FORUM DESCRIPTION Discussion Board Two - Chapter 7- Criminal & Cyber Law Despite the fact that your business, "And They're Off Go-Kart Emporium, was recently sued by a customer who was injured on site, you were recently able to settle the case in a fair manner and are moving forward with renewed confidence that your business is operating well A few weeks later. Investigator Michael Roberts from the Internal Revenue arrives at your business and notifies you that he would like you to come in and speak with him regarding your failure to pay state sales tax. He schedules an appointment with you and would like you to bring in any tax records for the past 5 years regarding this issue. He notes that you will not need an attorney, as you are not under arrest, but only currently under investigation. He indicates that your cooperation in this matter will be taken into consideration and will be to your benefit should there be any future penaties in this case You arrive at the interview at the arranged time and you provide the tax information that Investigator Roberts requested. The interview begins and although he seems nice, you get an uneasy feeling about the process and his questions. Although you know you have done nothing wrong, you get the sense that Investigator Roberts believes that you have committed a crime of some kind. Since you have no idea where the conversation is leading, you really feel that it would be in your best interest to speak with an attorney. You pause and tell the Investigator that you think you should speak to a lawyer before going any turther with the interview. His demeanor changes and he says, "Wow, I was really hoping that you were going to cooperate." Required Discussion Points Note: Create your Main Post response in accordance with the following four questions. Use each question as the title to each section of your response. Make sure to address all of the relevant legal principles and factual issues pertaining to each question Briefly discuss the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and note how it may or may not be applicable to your situation 2. identity, define and discuss any relevant Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment protections and discuss the rules and exceptions to Mirands and how they might apply to your new predicament. 3. Discuss what if any negative impact a violation of your Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights will have on the use of any statement you may have made to Investigator Roberts or any additional proof that the police might have obtained, as the result of your interview, at the time of trial. Can this evidence be excluded? Why, or why not? Identify, define and discuss any relevant legal theories 4 in light of the aforementioned, should you cease the interview and re-schedule so you can have your lawyer present for any continuation of the interview? Why or why not? Discuss any relevant legal theories that may be applicable in this regard IR Type here to search