Being Questioned by the Police and Unrelated Crimes

Factual Questions
1

So, anyone who’s watched any cop shows on TV, especially the Law & Order series, has viewed plenty of scenes in which the officers are questioning a possible witness and it becomes readily apparent that the witness has committed some other, lesser, unrelated crime. Of course, the officers say that they aren’t interested in that sort of thing, they have bigger fish to fry after all, and won’t get them in trouble as long as they cooperate and say what they know. Usually the witness then cooperates.

So, my question is, in real life, how likely is this kind of scenario? Hypothetically, suppose a couple officers are questioning me about what I witnessed in regards to a murder, and just happen to come across my personal drug stash or some evidence that I solicited a prostitute or something like that. What would probably happen?

2

I’d hazard a guess that that little dope stash becomes a “bargaining chip” that the detective will use to pressure the witness to comply.

3

A close friend is a Superior Court Judge. His advice to me was “Once you are read your rights, you have only two things to say: I want to speak to my/an attorney, and Am I free to go? Otherwise, STFU”. I stand by his advice. They may try and scare you by saying “what are you scared of, why are you lawyering up, what do you have to hide?” but repeat the above until your lawyer comes or they let you go. Believe me, this works.

Now, if you have not been read your rights, then it is possible that your inadvertant disclosure isn’t admissible. However, IANAL, and YMMV. Perhaps GFactor or another of the board’s legal eagles will come by and give an expert opinion on that.

4

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
A close friend is a Superior Court Judge. His advice to me was “Once you are read your rights, you have only two things to say: I want to speak to my/an attorney, and Am I free to go? Otherwise, STFU”.
[/QUOTE]

Are witnesses read their rights ? In the “crime drama” case, its often a witness rather than a suspect the divulges, or is discovered to have commited, some secondard crime. Usually after a clamming up for all of 30 seconds, after a bit of harranging from the main protangonist, and with no thought to the legal repercussions they will admit that “We’ll I was buying drugs, seeing a hooker, stealing something, etc. when I saw…”.
Though even if the person in question is a suspect, they’ve been read their rights, and thier lawyer is there, how the situation in the OP usually play out. In the real world how does it work in the case when there is some secondary crime involved, particularly if the suspects albi relies on that crime. Presumably actual writen promises of immunity from prosecution are hard to come by, if the cops give verbal indication they are not interested, would the lawyer recommend the suspect comes clean ? If thier albi is rock solid but begins with the line “Well, I was selling some drugs on the other side town when..”.

5

[QUOTE=griffin1977]
Are witnesses read their rights ? In the “crime drama” case, its often a witness rather than a suspect the divulges, or is discovered to have commited, some secondard crime. .
[/QUOTE]

Generally, a witness would not be read their rights routinely.

6

Even if they can’t convict you based solely on what you say as an un-Mirandized witness, can what you say as a witness in an informal interview be used as probable cause for a subsequent search warrant?

7

If you were to watch The First 48 on A&E you would definitely see how often it happens. There are TONS of people who are being questioned about murder and end up saying, well, I only carjacked so and so or my job is to sell weed and crack, that’s it ! It happens a lot !

8

There was a rerun of an old L&O last night in which the witness to a murder took the Fifth when asked where he had been coming from when he saw the murder suspect (he’d been involved in illegal bookmaking). The judge directed him to answer and said he would strike the whole testimony unless he did. The witness’s lawyer (who was present in court) advised him not to answer the question as he’d be open to prosecution for his answer, McCoy said it was his duty to respond.

Eventually he withdrew the Fifth, answered the question, the suspect was convicted, and the ADA who had been planning to go after the witness dropped his prosecution, but it did highlight the possible dangers of being truthful.

9

What I’m gathering, generally, is that if there’s even a hint that I might get in trouble for another crime, my best bet is to talk to a lawyer before saying anything. Of course, general legal advice seems to be that I should talk to a lawyer before answering an officer’s question of “did you see a man in a black sweater walk past here?”

In these cop shows, almost always the officers will make some comment to the effect that as long as the witness cooperates, they won’t be charged. Is this in any way legally binding? If the cop says “just tell us what you know and we won’t charge you for your dope stash” do I have any legal protection provided I cooperate? Is there anything stopping the officer from turning around 5 minutes later and slapping the cuffs on me? In reality, how often do these sorts of things happen, and would calling in a lawyer just waste enough of the cops’ time that they’ll charge me out of annoyance?

Is there anyone in law enforcement that would care to comment?

10

It is a crime to lie to the police but the Supreme Court says it is okay for the police to lie to you.

11

[QUOTE=Will Repair]
It is a crime to lie to the police but the Supreme Court says it is okay for the police to lie to you.
[/QUOTE]

It is not a crime to lie to police. It is a crime to obstruct an investigation or the administration of law. It is also a crime to lie about your identity in order to falsely incriminate another or to hinder your own apprehension. Just the act of lying is not a crime, it’s how that lie is used.

YMMV I don’t know the laws in all states yadda yadda.

12

[QUOTE=Garula]
What I’m gathering, generally, is that if there’s even a hint that I might get in trouble for another crime, my best bet is to talk to a lawyer before saying anything. Of course, general legal advice seems to be that I should talk to a lawyer before answering an officer’s question of “did you see a man in a black sweater walk past here?”

In these cop shows, almost always the officers will make some comment to the effect that as long as the witness cooperates, they won’t be charged. Is this in any way legally binding? If the cop says “just tell us what you know and we won’t charge you for your dope stash” do I have any legal protection provided I cooperate? Is there anything stopping the officer from turning around 5 minutes later and slapping the cuffs on me? In reality, how often do these sorts of things happen, and would calling in a lawyer just waste enough of the cops’ time that they’ll charge me out of annoyance?

Is there anyone in law enforcement that would care to comment?
[/QUOTE]

It happens all the time. Though usually it is after an arrest. Someone is arrested on a realively minor crime and then they work it off by cooperating with a larger investigation. The technical term is “snitch” (actually it is confidential informant but you get the idea). No there is no legal protection for you. But it is in the police’s best interest to keep their word. The cop would like the informant to remain useful. And if it gets around that the cop is burning his informants then it will get harder to cultivate them in the future. And the same low level criminals pop up over and over when they again get in trouble and want to work it off. When it comes to lawyers and courtroom testimony someone else can answer but I believe at that point there are legally binding agreements that are made before the trial.

13

[QUOTE=Loach]
It is not a crime to lie to the police
[/QUOTE]

I think its a crime to lie to federal investigators. That was what Marion Jones was sent to prison for:

14

[QUOTE=griffin1977]
I think its a crime to lie to federal investigators. That was what Marion Jones was sent to prison for:

[/QUOTE]

I do not know the wording of the federal statute. I would have no reason to deal with it at work. However that Jones case does not contradict what I said previously. She lied to investigators who were on the BALCO case. Her lies obstructed the investigation.

A quick look showed a few sites that had misleading info on what she was charged with. Some say perjury, some say lying to the feds. I’m guessing it was both and she pled to the lesser charge.

15

[QUOTE=Loach]
It happens all the time. Though usually it is after an arrest. Someone is arrested on a realively minor crime and then they work it off by cooperating with a larger investigation. The technical term is “snitch” (actually it is confidential informant but you get the idea). No there is no legal protection for you. But it is in the police’s best interest to keep their word. The cop would like the informant to remain useful. And if it gets around that the cop is burning his informants then it will get harder to cultivate them in the future. And the same low level criminals pop up over and over when they again get in trouble and want to work it off. When it comes to lawyers and courtroom testimony someone else can answer but I believe at that point there are legally binding agreements that are made before the trial.
[/QUOTE]

As Loach points out, as a legal matter, investigators do not have the authority to agree not to prosecute. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=sc&vol=20010409074049.3BB27&invol=1 I’m sure he’s also right that breaching the agreement probably hurts the investigator in the long run.

Pre-trial plea agreements are enforceable, but you need someone with authority to make the agreement. The cops don’t have it.

Regarding the OP, as long as the cops complied with Miranda either by not taking you into custody before interrogating you or respecting your *Miranda * rights if they do, evidence of unrelated crimes discovered during an interrogation is admissible. It doesn’t matter if you are in custody based on an unrelated matter. If you are in custody, *Miranda * applies to interrogations.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=391&invol=1
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1998/961532-1.htm
Confessions - The Self-incrimination Approach—miranda Doctrine - Miranda, Court, Police, and Defendant - JRank Articles

16

[QUOTE=Loach]

A quick look showed a few sites that had misleading info on what she was charged with. Some say perjury, some say lying to the feds. I’m guessing it was both and she pled to the lesser charge.
[/QUOTE]

I know a few places claimed she was guily of perjury thats not what she was found guilty of (IMO its a pretty major misrepresentation of the facts).

INAL but I’m pretty sure the federal crime is lying to Fedral agents, not obstructing an investigation or lying under oath::

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/043/lying.html

17

Before dudes get too excited, my Bro is an ex-IRS agent, and the Federal prosecutors laughed at the idea of bringing charges against someone for lying to an IRS agent.

However, note that they did bring charges if/when the person submiited altered or forged documents.

18

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Before dudes get too excited, my Bro is an ex-IRS agent, and the Federal prosecutors laughed at the idea of bringing charges against someone for lying to an IRS agent.

However, note that they did bring charges if/when the person submiited altered or forged documents.
[/QUOTE]

I remember you said that in a previous thread, but I wonder if the feds don’t pursue it just because they don’t have the resources to go after such cases? IOW, they could string you up but just couldn’t be bothered?

19

[QUOTE=Loach]
It is not a crime to lie to police.
[/QUOTE]

True, in general, of state and municipal authorities. The feds have a special statute, which has been mentioned:

[QUOTE=18 U.S.C. 1001]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Before dudes get too excited, my Bro is an ex-IRS agent, and the Federal prosecutors laughed at the idea of bringing charges against someone for lying to an IRS agent.
[/QUOTE]

Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398; 118 S. Ct. 805; 139 L. Ed. 2d 830; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 648; 66 U.S.L.W. 4111; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 643; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 495; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 322 (1998) (rejecting “exulpatory no” doctrine and upholding conviction after after defendant orally denied receiving cash or gifts when asked by DOL and IRS agents)

United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (1984):http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=466&invol=475 (upholding conviction for false statements to FBI and Secret Service)

Courts did often try to find a way to acquit those charged only with lying orally. But most of these decisions predate Brogan.

U.S. v. Poutre, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18922; 80-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9588; 46 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5315 (1st Cir.) (false oral statements to IRS agents–reversed based on now-rejected “exculpatory no” doctrine) vacated by 646 F.2d 685; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 10929; 52 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5203 (1st Cir. en banc) (insufficient evidence)

20

[QUOTE=Will Repair]
It is a crime to lie to the police but the Supreme Court says it is okay for the police to lie to you.
[/QUOTE]

Cop: “Thank you for coming in Mr. Glee. Now you saw the bank robbers leave and run to their car?”
Glee: “Yes, I gave a full description to the officer at the scene - and I noted the license plate.”
Cop: “We really appreciate all that and it will help the investigation. Now we do need to know how accurate you are as an eye-witness. Because you could be called upon to testify in court and the defence will ask you questions.”
Glee: “I understand. Well I’m 52 years old and wear glasses, but the prescription is only 2 years old.”

time passes …

Cop: “OK, Mr. Glee. We now know you are 54 and last got a prescription 3 years ago. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!”
Glee: " :eek: "