Why is it a crime to lie to police?

[Bijou Drains]

I think the answer is because you are not required to say anything. Is that correct? Or is the answer more complex?

I am pretty sure that recently the courts ruled the police can lie to a suspect which surprises me.

[Casey1505]

Guessing that it is considered obstruction of justice?

[KneadToKnow]

Lying to someone who is investigating a crime is an obstruction to solving of that crime, howsoever the wording of the law puts it. It is therefore, a Bad Thing.

[Alpha Twit]

Depends on the circumstances but you could easily be charged as an accomplice to a crime if you deliberately give false info.

[Bijou Drains]

I guess what I am asking is how did this come to be illegal? It seems like it's human nature to lie about crime if you are guilty. Has it been illegal for a long time or is this a recent law?

[Kobal2]

Recently ? The cops have *always* had the absolute right to lie, connive, bait and otherwise bullshit you into confessing whatever it is you did. It would be a bit difficult to conduct investigations otherwise, don't you think ? The only two things they cannot do is coerce you, or entice you to commit a crime.
Point in fact : whenever a policeman says "We know you did it, we can prove it, you might as well confess", he's lying through his teeth.

OTOH, policemen have a vested interest in letting people believe cops don't have the right to lie - because it makes their job easier, and criminals are stupid.

Same thing about it being a crime to lie to the police. It's not. It is a crime lie under court oath, but that's it.
But interrogations are not conducted under oath. If you don't want to own up that the reason you were in the neighbourhood at 3AM was to meet up with your secret lover, feel free to tell them you were going to church. If you ever end up on a witness or defendant stand, that lie will certainly be used to smear you (and by extension, the rest of your testimony) for the benefit of the jury, but they can't lock you up for it.

That being said, it's in your best interest not to lie to the police. In fact, it's in your best interest to keep your mouth shut in any and all situations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc). Even if you're perfectly innocent. Especially if you're perfectly innocent.

[Lare]

You may not be under oath, but there is a stipulation that you aren't supposed to "provide false information to a police officer."

A cursory examination of a Google search seems to indicate it exists. A slightly more in-depth reading of a few more entries found me cites regarding doing so in a traffic ticket situation.

The police have a vested interest in you giving them honest information and can get snippy if you tell them something misleading.

[Procrustus]

The law is not used (based on my limited experience) to prosecute someone who is lying about being innocent. I guess that expected. Where I see it in play is when a person falsely says "John Doe raped me," or "he went that way" in response to a question about the location of a fleeing bank robber. Those kinds of lies cause all kinds of mischief.

[Markxxx]

It's a crime because you live in a society. That means you have an obligation to help make it safe and well run.

If you lie to the police you are making the society less safe.

You might ask "Why do I have to pay taxes"? You don't have to but they'll put you in jail. You have an obligation to support the society you live in.

Why do I have to attend school? Because you are part of society and a well educated member of society is more likely to help the society as a whole rather than be a burden on it.

So you may ask, "Well why should the police be able to lie to me and not the other way around"?

Because the two things are not the same. Suppose a cop car runs a red light, with the siren on and lights flashing of course. This is OK because the cop car needs to be somewhere in a hurry. You can't run the red light if you're late to work.

But being late to work is not the same thing as a cop car needing to be somewhere in a hurry.

The police lying to you to solve a crime is not the same as you lying to them to obstruct it.

[Bear_Nenno]

Same thing about it being a crime to lie to the police. It's not. It is a crime lie under court oath, but that's it.Why would you state something that is so completely wrong? Not to mention the fact that we are dealing with countless jurisdictions and countries on this board. If you want to make an outrageous claim like this, at least state which city and country you are referring to.

In the state of Florida, it is illegal to "materially lie" to a Police Officer. As it should be.

[GHO57]

In the state of Florida, it is illegal to "materially lie" to a Police Officer. As it should be.

You mean like when they ask you if you're guilty?

[Rumor_Watkins]

You mean like when they ask you if you're guilty?

um, not being truthful in that situation is a constitutionally-protected right. other times, it isn't.

[ChrisBooth12]

Recently ? The cops have *always* had the absolute right to lie, connive, bait and otherwise bullshit you into confessing whatever it is you did. It would be a bit difficult to conduct investigations otherwise, don't you think ? The only two things they cannot do is coerce you, or entice you to commit a crime.
Point in fact : whenever a policeman says "We know you did it, we can prove it, you might as well confess", he's lying through his teeth.

OTOH, policemen have a vested interest in letting people believe cops don't have the right to lie - because it makes their job easier, and criminals are stupid.

Same thing about it being a crime to lie to the police. It's not. It is a crime lie under court oath, but that's it.
But interrogations are not conducted under oath. If you don't want to own up that the reason you were in the neighbourhood at 3AM was to meet up with your secret lover, feel free to tell them you were going to church. If you ever end up on a witness or defendant stand, that lie will certainly be used to smear you (and by extension, the rest of your testimony) for the benefit of the jury, but they can't lock you up for it.

That being said, it's in your best interest not to lie to the police. In fact, it's in your best interest to keep your mouth shut in any and all situations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc). Even if you're perfectly innocent. Especially if you're perfectly innocent.

So when I buy pot from an undercover I won't get in trouble? Had he not been there said pot would not have been bought. I do not understand how things like this are not entrapment. Me walking up to a cop asking for blow is one thing, but having a cop ask me as I walk down the street if I want drugs is ok? I do not understand

[ChrisBooth12]

Recently ? The cops have *always* had the absolute right to lie, connive, bait and otherwise bullshit you into confessing whatever it is you did. It would be a bit difficult to conduct investigations otherwise, don't you think ? The only two things they cannot do is coerce you, or entice you to commit a crime.


So when I buy pot from an undercover I won't get in trouble? Had he not been there said pot would not have been bought. I do not understand how things like this are not entrapment. Me walking up to a cop asking for blow is one thing, but having a cop ask me as I walk down the street if I want drugs is ok? I do not understand

[Rumor_Watkins]

So when I buy pot from an undercover I won't get in trouble? Had he not been there said pot would not have been bought. I do not understand how things like this are not entrapment. Me walking up to a cop asking for blow is one thing, but having a cop ask me as I walk down the street if I want drugs is ok? I do not understand

It's not entrapment because he's not compelling you to make the purchase. He's not overcoming your free will in committing the criminal act - he's just enabling it.

Most people who are law abiding wouldn't say "yeah, sure, gimme a dime bag" when asked if they want to buy drugs.

[Muffin]

If you lie to an officer, prosecutor or judge, you stand in the way of finding the truth, you may put someone else at risk of wrongful conviction, you may prevent a proper conviction of someone else, and at the very least you waste public resources.

[In Winnipeg]

Lying to the police could well constitute public mischief, in the case of reporting a crime that never occurred and causing them to investigate said crime, but I think that that is the only instance.

Lying to the police when being interviewed regarding a crime under investigation could well be a mistake of fact, if called upon later to explain the "lie" in question.

There is no obligation to help a police officer who is investigating a crime -- that's his job -- and there is obligation to do his work for him.



Of course, it all might hinge on the jurisdiction in question.


.

[Cardinal]

That being said, it's in your best interest not to lie to the police. In fact, it's in your best interest to keep your mouth shut in any and all situations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc). Even if you're perfectly innocent. Especially if you're perfectly innocent.I was going to post that link. Despite my upbringing, I think I'm going to try to follow through on that.

[In Winnipeg]

In fact, it's in your best interest to keep your mouth shut in any and all situations. Even if you're perfectly innocent. Especially if you're perfectly innocent.

So true.

If the police bring you in for questioning (ie, you're not under arrest), say NOTHING. They will try to act like your buddy, and ask you why you don't want to help them. Ignore this. If it's a Friday, and they say they could arrest you and you'll likely spend the weekend in jail because there won't be any lawyers available until then, ignore this too. They're only trying to scare information out of you. If they think they have reason enough to arrest you, they will, but it must be justifiable, lest they get sued for false arrest, so if they're only fishing, it won't happen, they'll turn you loose.

The problem with talking to them is that they'll try to twist anything you say, especially if they're too lazy to go out and actually do the police work involved to find the guilty party. Sarcasm doesn't translate well to written documents, and seldom does a police department videotape or even audiotape an inquiry. Therefore if cop says he thinks you robbed the store (and you know you didn't), the exchange will look like this in print:

Cop: Well, I put it to you that you robbed the store.

You: Right. I robbed the store. Sure.

Now, your answer might have been said in a sarcastic manner, bit it sure doesn't translate that way in print; in fact, it looks like a confession, doesn't it?

By and large, cops can be good, but it all depends on the situation when you come into contact with them, because other times they can be total assholes. Other times, you couldn't trust them as far as you could throw them. They're not in the business to be your friend, no matter what you learned when you were a kid. After all, they are the fascist apparatus of the state.

And again, don't do their job for them -- say NOTHING.

[Tom Tildrum]

Same thing about it being a crime to lie to the police. It's not. It is a crime lie under court oath, but that's it.

18 USC sec. 1001 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html) makes it a crime to lie to a federal investigator, even when not under oath. This is what Martha Stewart was convicted over.

You mean like when they ask you if you're guilty?

um, not being truthful in that situation is a constitutionally-protected right. other times, it isn't.

You only have the right to remain silent. Technically, you do not have the right to lie in this situation and could be charged for falsely claiming innocence. I have no idea whether that ever gets prosecuted, though, since presumably if they have enough to prove you guilty on this point, they have enough to convict you of whatever substantive charge you were lying about. One of the other Doper lawyers who deals directly with criminal law might know whether this is anything more than a theoretical point.

[Rumor_Watkins]

You only have the right to remain silent. Technically, you do not have the right to lie in this situation and could be charged for falsely claiming innocence. I have no idea whether that ever gets prosecuted, though, since presumably if they have enough to prove you guilty on this point, they have enough to convict you of whatever substantive charge you were lying about. One of the other Doper lawyers who deals directly with criminal law might know whether this is anything more than a theoretical point.

BROGAN v. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)

the "exculpatory no doctrine" was soundly rejected by the Supremes. I stand mistaken.

[Kobal2]

Why would you state something that is so completely wrong? Not to mention the fact that we are dealing with countless jurisdictions and countries on this board. If you want to make an outrageous claim like this, at least state which city and country you are referring to.

In the state of Florida, it is illegal to "materially lie" to a Police Officer. As it should be.

Yes, I'm afraid I was overly broad - it is usually illegal to provide false information directly pertaining to a crime, or deliberately misdirect the men investigating a crime, or waste the police's time (e.g. bogus rape claims). That falls under obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, false reporting and so forth.

My answer was given on the assumption that the OP meant in situations when you aren't the guilty party lying to get away with it, i.e. lying about things the police has no business asking you about and protecting your privacy. Maybe I'm too confident in the honesty of internet strangers in general and Dopers in particular :)

Lying about facts unrelated to a case or crime, however, wasn't a crime that I knew of. Tom Tildrum set me straight on that point. Note that judgement calls, opinions or interpretation of facts can't be construed as lies by the law, only factual answers - so there's probably some leeway margin there. Still, when in doubt, clam up. You should always be in doubt.

So when I buy pot from an undercover I won't get in trouble? Had he not been there said pot would not have been bought. I do not understand how things like this are not entrapment. Me walking up to a cop asking for blow is one thing, but having a cop ask me as I walk down the street if I want drugs is ok? I do not understand

Not an expert there, but AFAIK they can only offer you the pot, which isn't entrapment : nobody's making you decide to buy it. What they cannot do is badger or force you into buying it if you refuse or somesuch. Or sell/give you pot under false pretenses, then nab you for possession ("Excuse me, could you hold this bag for me for a sec ? Ha HA ! There's pot in your bag, sir !"). That's entrapment.

[Quercus]

Lying about facts unrelated to a case or crime, however, wasn't a crime that I knew of. Tom Tildrum set me straight on that point. Note that the cite by Tom Tildrum was a federal statute about false statements to federal employees. Almost all police in the U.S. are municpal employees rather than federal, and lying to them would be covered (or not) by state laws.

Bear Nenno stated (without cite) that it's illegal to lie to police in Florida. Other states may or may not have similar or slightly different laws.

[md2000]

AFAIK Martha Stweart was convicted of obstruction because she deleted evidence on her computer. The fact that she thought about it for a few hours, realized it was not the right move, and retyped it was apparently irrelvant.

They tried to nail her for perjury because her story conflicted with the secretary's. They asserted that the secretary's notes and her memory after reading those notes constituted two separate pieces of evidence necessary for a perjury conviction. AFAIK the judge tossed that argument out the window.

They never did nail her on insider trading because nobody ever admitted to doing anything against the rules. It was the coverup and the explanations that got her in trouble.

---
IANAL - misleading the police over any inestigation is obstruction of justice, if they can show it was deliberate not an accident or bad memory or whatever. Lying under oath is perjury. I have not heard of anyone being tried for lying to investigators about their own crime; it's when a third party tries to jump in and steer police wrong (false alibi, incorrect info) that they may be charged. Don't try to do a buddy any favours by lying.

However, tampering with physical evidence once you know the police are investigating is definitely a crime that anyone can be prosecuted for. I recall one case years ago where a phone hacker was arrested, then the police left him in the interrogation room with his Radio Shack autodialer. He removed and then replaced the batteries, thus deleting any preprogrammed codes. The cops obviously knew this was a cheap way to get him, they nailed him for obstruction for destroying evidence. I'm sure the police knew it was an easy conviction that way, and leverage to make him plead guilty to other charges.

there was one case where the feds tried to nail someone for lying to his own lawyers. The lawyers passed on their client's statement to police, who then said that he was obstructing justice because he lied to his own lawyers knowing that they would pass that information to police. IIRC, that was tossed by the judge pretty much immediately. I suspect the prosecutors were reaching because they had nothing else to stick on him.

[rbroome]

AFAIK Martha Stweart was convicted of obstruction because she deleted evidence on her computer. The fact that she thought about it for a few hours, realized it was not the right move, and retyped it was apparently irrelvant.

They tried to nail her for perjury because her story conflicted with the secretary's. They asserted that the secretary's notes and her memory after reading those notes constituted two separate pieces of evidence necessary for a perjury conviction. AFAIK the judge tossed that argument out the window.

They never did nail her on insider trading because nobody ever admitted to doing anything against the rules. It was the coverup and the explanations that got her in trouble.

---
IANAL - misleading the police over any inestigation is obstruction of justice, if they can show it was deliberate not an accident or bad memory or whatever. Lying under oath is perjury. I have not heard of anyone being tried for lying to investigators about their own crime; it's when a third party tries to jump in and steer police wrong (false alibi, incorrect info) that they may be charged. Don't try to do a buddy any favours by lying.

However, tampering with physical evidence once you know the police are investigating is definitely a crime that anyone can be prosecuted for. I recall one case years ago where a phone hacker was arrested, then the police left him in the interrogation room with his Radio Shack autodialer. He removed and then replaced the batteries, thus deleting any preprogrammed codes. The cops obviously knew this was a cheap way to get him, they nailed him for obstruction for destroying evidence. I'm sure the police knew it was an easy conviction that way, and leverage to make him plead guilty to other charges.

there was one case where the feds tried to nail someone for lying to his own lawyers. The lawyers passed on their client's statement to police, who then said that he was obstructing justice because he lied to his own lawyers knowing that they would pass that information to police. IIRC, that was tossed by the judge pretty much immediately. I suspect the prosecutors were reaching because they had nothing else to stick on him.

According to news reports, Martha Steward was convicted of several charges and one of them is obstruction of justice by lying to investigators.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,598286,00.html

http://www.forbes.com/2004/03/05/cx_da_0305marthafinal.html