That's kind of the point in the article. Federal Law creates a wonderful catch 22, because you know the child porn will provoke an investigation, therefore you know it's evidence, even if you don't know of an active investigation.
I was talking about: filing the subpoena, calling the lawyer to the stand, swearing them in, then asking them the question only to be told, "nope, not gonna' talk 'bout that. Attorney/client privilege."
The exceptions I can think of are cases where the attorney was actually an accomplice, or there was a third party present. But, those are some fairly rare circumstances.
I'm not seeing where the Lindbergh case comes in at all. Maybe I'm just tired. Sorry.
If I'm remembering correctly, the final line would be to simply refuse to answer questions when asked. No one in their right mind would push it that far, and would be wasting everyone's time to get there. But... *shrugs*
It applies in the US as well. You might be able to report a crime at the request of your client. But you can't report that your client committed a crime. That's kind of the point of attorney client privilege.
I used to have a friend who was overly fond of the phrase, "you can do anything you want until someone stops you."
Unfortunately, the Law Enforcement community in the US has spent most of the last few decades saying, "no, honest, you can trust us, we won't abuse our power. We need it to do our jobs."
They can do whatever they want. We wouldn't be seeing issues like the cop screaming at a cabbie in New York if he didn't honestly believe he could do it without repercussions.
In a case like this, or the drug possession example above, you're just hoping that deep down, the cop you're dealing with is a nice guy and having a good day. Because if either of those aren't the case, they're empowered to wreck your life in a fit of pique.
It's not about "can't" being a fluid term. It's not.
Without looking closer at the original tweets, it's entirely possible the they could be considered: a threat, fighting words, or incitement.
Again, without looking, I'm not sure which one applies, and I don't really care enough to. But, you're right, there ARE limits to free speech. Some people would like to expand those limits to "anything I don't like," but that doesn't change that they exist.
I'd say excluding justified killings, Tom's estimate would be conservative to say the least.
Also, with the sheer volume of shootings, and the increasing number of police killings where we're seeing police overstepping the bounds and then claiming it was justified, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of genuinely justifiable police shootings are in the single digits. With a most of them being "justified" because the person they killed was trying to defend themselves from a madman on a power trip with a badge and a trunk full of military hardware they were itching to play with.