Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-16-2018, 03:39 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
SCTUS has said you must ID yourself, but IIRC IANAL they left it open to the degree of what constitutes "ID".
As I recall that case dealt with a father and daughter who had been arguing or something(?) loudly. Someone called the cops. When they were asked to identify themselves, they both refused. The police were not sure a crime had even been committed, but they did have a report of a problem and these looked like the people reported. They arrested them for refusing to identify themselves.

IIRC the SC said that where there's a legitimate concern that a crime may have happened, people who the police think might be involved have to tell the police who they are. I don't think it comes down to proof - no "papers please" - but you do have to tell the police your name. Nothing else. It can't be for a random encounter, the police have to have a reason to believe you are involved in something or saw it. It doesn't have to be arrest-worthy probably cause.

I assume the logic is something along the lines of - if the police ever have to go back to revisit the situation, they at least know who the participants were.
  #102  
Old 06-16-2018, 06:11 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
1. Isn't this based on state law in the U.S.? If so, are there some states that do not have a law that requires a suspect to provide this information?
.
In my state you do not have to identify yourself if you haven't committed a crime and it is not obstructing an officer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
L&O was often excellent when it came to points of law and in particular they would use specific aspects of New York law.
Does NY require one be Mirandized even while fighting just putting cuffs on? Because in most of the country you don't have to. it's one of the nitpicks I have about police shows/movies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
Reasonable articulable suspicion is what most people call probable cause.
Except they are not the same. Reasonable Suspicion is a lesser standard that Probable Cause. I need RS to detain you but PC to actually place you under arrest.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #103  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:01 PM
Crafter_Man Crafter_Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Except they are not the same. Reasonable Suspicion is a lesser standard that Probable Cause. I need RS to detain you but PC to actually place you under arrest.
What postpic200 was saying was, "That's what most people believe, and they are wrong. Here are the correct definitions." And then postpic200 goes on to provide the correct explanation in the sentences that follow.
  #104  
Old 06-18-2018, 07:36 AM
TheMightyFro TheMightyFro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
does it ever hurt to refuse to talk to police or prosecutors until you have a lawyer present? And is it considered prosecutorial misconduct to repeatedly try to talk someone out of speaking to their lawyer, even after they’ve said they want to?
The only situation where it would look, and merely "look" bad to refuse to speak before consulting a lawyer, would be in the case where the accused is of a sufficient level of celebrity, or fame, where doing so could influence a jury.

From the police perspective, it's 100% to the police's advantage that you talk without one, after making it clear you have the right (Hence why the police now always use the Miranda rights speech). The police can advise you of that right, and then basically use "trickery and chicanery" to make it seem like it would be easier for the accused to forgo the right of an attorney. It can get really complicated, but it is basically fair play for the police to sweet talk you into giving up self-incriminating information.

Is is misconduct for the police or DA's office to do so? More like it is standard protocol.
  #105  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:18 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMightyFro View Post
The only situation where it would look, and merely "look" bad to refuse to speak before consulting a lawyer, would be in the case where the accused is of a sufficient level of celebrity, or fame, where doing so could influence a jury.

From the police perspective, it's 100% to the police's advantage that you talk without one, after making it clear you have the right (Hence why the police now always use the Miranda rights speech). The police can advise you of that right, and then basically use "trickery and chicanery" to make it seem like it would be easier for the accused to forgo the right of an attorney. It can get really complicated, but it is basically fair play for the police to sweet talk you into giving up self-incriminating information.

Is is misconduct for the police or DA's office to do so? More like it is standard protocol.
But it is not allowed to even bring up the refusal to talk in court. And of course, a person does not have to take the stand if they are the defendant, and pretty much all the time defendants don't. Almost anyone of any importance once arrested immediately gets a lawyer to show up. So the only reason a pool of jurors would know the person should "look bad" is if the police leaked that detail to the media. I would think that sort of detail would bring the proceedings pretty close to mistrial?
  #106  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:45 PM
MikeF MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,357
I've had cases where things were time-sensitive. We might have multiple people under arrest and be seeking to locate evidence or another suspect. The first one to sing gets consideration. You want a lawyer? Fine that's your right but if someone else flips first..oh, well. It was rare but it did happen.
  #107  
Old 06-18-2018, 02:32 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 55,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I've had cases where things were time-sensitive. We might have multiple people under arrest and be seeking to locate evidence or another suspect. The first one to sing gets consideration. You want a lawyer? Fine that's your right but if someone else flips first..oh, well. It was rare but it did happen.
The first one to sing gets consideration? What if the "first one to sing" was the ringleader? Does she/he get off lighter because you got to arrest more people no matter where most of he responsibility for the crime actually lays?
  #108  
Old 06-18-2018, 03:10 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 75,807
When I was a prosecutor I had cases from time to time in which the "victim" just happened to be the first one to call the police, and the "defendant" was either the second or never called at all. Otherwise they both looked pretty equally guilty.
  #109  
Old 06-18-2018, 04:18 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The first one to sing gets consideration? What if the "first one to sing" was the ringleader? Does she/he get off lighter because you got to arrest more people no matter where most of he responsibility for the crime actually lays?
Well of course. The justice system isn't about justice, it's about getting a conviction for every crime. I recall reading several cases where the appeal against a capital murder execution involved an accomplice or getaway driver who was headed for execution based on the confession of the triggerman - who got life not death.

The point is, the prosecutor will often make a deal with the first one to flip, regardless of the ethics. In fact, that is one of the persuasion tactics the police use to get someone to talk, so they'd lose their key piece of testimony if they did not follow through.

(Brings up an interesting question - is a deal like that enforceable? I guess it depends what they are promised. I assume by the time a deal is offered, the prosecutor is involved.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017