I’m reminded of a supreme court decision in Canada (when we were like the UK, before we had an alleged bill of rights). The police presented the suspect with a signed confession from his (married) girlfriend about murdering her husband. he laughed in their faces, and when they let them go, attempted to sue and have them charged with forgery. It eventually reached the Canadian SUpreme Court, where it was decided just because the police had committed forgery to attempt to coerce a confession did not mean they had broken the law.
Yes, there are certain red lines the police cannot cross. They cannot promise specific things they are not entitled to, like “well forget the charge”, but every TV show seems to show the old cliche, “things will go easier for you if you cooperate”. trying to talk you out of a lawyer seems to happen a lot on TV, but IIRC that’s dangerous ground. So is questioning you after you ask for a lawyer, but it happens. Obviously they can’t beat you (legally).
Read the case of the security guard during the Atlanta Olympics bombing - the FBI asked him to come down to the station to help make a video about recognizing threats. As part of this they tried to get him to sign a waiver of right to counsel on camera as “part of the script”. They told the media he wa a person of interest, basically destroyed his life. Just because the courts won’t accept it later does not mean some police might not try it…
I seem to recall an episode of Castle where Castle asks Becket why she didn’t tell a suspect not to leave town, and she replied that she didn’t have the legal right to do so. A little later, she does tell a suspect not to leave town. Castle calls her on it later, and she agreed that, while she didn’t have the legal authority, the young suspect “doesn’t know that”.
Since you mentioned Canada, I’d point out that the police aren’t quite as limited up here as in the US when it comes to interrogation and lawyers. See Miranda warning - Wikipedia
“You know, Claire, we are a NATIONAL organization.”
-FBI Special Agent Frawley, The Town
Not like I’m an expert or anything, but what would the cops do if you did leave town? Chicago cops have no jurisdiction in New York. So to get you back, they would have to go through some process of extraditing you from another jurisdiction. Which probably won’t happen without good reason.
This is one of the biggest issues with asserting your civil rights when confronted by police. Sometimes, if you cooperate freely, they will decide they have nothing on you (or nothing serious enough to care about), and let you go, and that’s the last of the matter. If you act like you have something to hide or are just acting ornery, they can exercise their discretion to arrest you, you end up in jail on pending charges, and a year and a half and 15 thousand dollars later, you walk out with your acquittal in hand, but are broke and homeless. You were fired for not showing up for work (because you were in jail waiting for your bail hearing), lost your home because you had to spend all your money on your defense, etc.
The FBI quote makes me wonder. To what extent does the FBI (or Federal law enforcement in general) have geographical jurisdictional issues within the US? If they are investigating someone for racketeering in Colorado and the suspect moves to Nebraska while the investigation is till going on, can they not just casually mosey on over to Nebraska to continue the investigation or make an arrest (because they are Federal, not Colorado cops). If an Insider Trader in New York gets jittery that he’s about to be busted and hops the next flight to Alaska, I would think the FBI could just show up at the Anchorage airport and grab him off the plane as soon as it lands.
Generally, if the FBI is investigating, it’s going to be a federal offense, and they’ve got jurisdiction in at least all 50 states (I guess also various U.S. territories and possessions, but you’d have to ask someone else if you want better info. Indian lands is another wrinkle, too). I suppose it’s possible that the FBI could be assisting a state in investigating something that’s a violation of state but not federal laws, but it seems unlikely-- if something is serious enough for the FBI to get involved, it’s probably able to be fit (at least tenuously) into one federal crime or another.
