Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-12-2018, 10:24 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post


No. And the police cannot offer deals only the prosecutor can.
Is this a jurisdictional thing? Loach mentions that his department prohibits this, but I don't know of a constitutional limit here. Given police can lie, I would figure offering fake deals would also be on the table. Is that not right?
  #52  
Old 06-12-2018, 10:32 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,597
It's because the police don't decide if a case will be prosecuted or what sentence will be pursued. They can charge, but the prosecutors decide what happens next.

Prosecutors are separate and independent from the police, not the lawyers for the police. The police can't instruct prosecutors what to do with a charge.
  #53  
Old 06-12-2018, 11:53 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,034
I understand that. I'm saying, the police can lie to you, why wouldn't they also be able to lie about making a deal.
  #54  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:03 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
This is a question on a USA technicality.

Don't people in the US already have the right to remain silent, before anyone tells them so?

Why, in the example of a cautious police interaction, was the person articulating his refusal to answer? Why not remain silent, for real?
You can say nothing at all, but... I believe this was covered in a previous thread a while ago... to make the police stop interrogating you without a lawyer, you have to reasonably clearly ask for one. Once you do, the police cannot ask you questions. But of course, if you say anything without being asked it's fair game. As others have mentioned this only applies if you have been arrested.

The cop on the street does not need to give you a chance to find a lawyer first, but then, you do not have to answer his questions or wait around. If he does detain you, then - there's a bunch of technicalities here, but if you are detained then you are under arrest and Miranda applies. IIRC there was a recent court case about when a traffic stop turns into detaining and the need for probable cause arises, etc. etc. The police cannot unreasonably stall a simple traffic ticket, for example, to get the sniffer dogs on site.

Loach and others make the point that a police department that does not want to have it's cases tossed regularly for skirting the limits, will have guidelines that are perhaps more strict than recent court cases. Even if someone asks "do I need a lawyer?" then take that as explicitly asking for a lawyer and there will never be an appeal based on whether that was an explicit lawyer request. Record all interactions and nobody will be able to claim something that did not happen.

I have trouble imagining a serious case where a deal did not involve a lawyer. After all, it goes to trial where the defendant pleads guilty and admits what he did - and if the lawyer present at that time lets a crappy deal go through without argument, then perhaps the defendant has a case for appealing for inadequate representation. And if the deal truly was inadequate, then the prosecutor, who is a knowledgeable (allegedly) lawyer, would be unethically pulling a fast one on a client who did not grasp the finer points of law. Also grounds for appeal, I presume.

There was a case in Toronto decades ago; a man was killed in a subway station, with not much evidence to go on. The police settled on the wife and her boyfriend and arrested them. During interrogation, they showed the boyfriend a confession signed by the wife saying that the boyfriend had arranged the whole thing, and suggested he was going to take the rap unless he ratted her out too. He laughed in their collective faces; when they let the two go for lack of evidence, he sued them for forgery (the wife's signature) since the crown would not prosecute the police. It went to the Canadian supreme court which ruled that the police can be deceptive in interrogating.

There have also been a number of "Mister Big Sting" cases in Canada; the police spend an inordinate amount of money to try to weasel a confession out of a suspect. Usually, he's a low life prime suspect - they have an undercover agent befriend him, slowly draw him into what is believed to be a criminal organization, give him money and other gifts, involve him in fake crimes (most recently, asked a guy to help clean up a large amount of blood from a "murder scene") then tell him to move up in the organization, prove his street cred by describing a crime he was involved in to "the boss". In this last case, at this point the guy laughed in their faces and told them they were cops.

"Mister Big" is explicitly not allowed in most other countries. It's fairly obvious that the denouement could appear sufficiently intimidating or enticing to the mark that he could simply lie or make things up so a confession is not credible. IIRC there was also a case in British Columbia where the mark thought he was really in danger from a criminal organization and shot one of the undercover policemen. Plus there was a case in Ontario several years ago where a little girl disappeared, and the police were in the process organizing this sting to get a confession from the mother, when the real suspects were found. The mother had no involvement.
  #55  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:34 AM
Lord Mondegreen Lord Mondegreen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 1,273
I'm assuming you are talking about the US, but it is probably worth a data point to note that the British caution is now, "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.Ē Source.

That seems to indicate that being silent may not be a good idea, although I guess saying absolutely nothing until your lawyer arrives does not negate your rights.
  #56  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:22 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I understand that. I'm saying, the police can lie to you, why wouldn't they also be able to lie about making a deal.


I've not seen a case where that issue has come up, but my off-the-cuff reaction is that in Canada, if a police officer tried to make a deal like that, and the Crown didn't agree with it, it would play out like this:

1. A plea deal is recognised in Canada as a contract. If the police offered a deal, the accused accepted it and then the Crown refused to implement it, the accused could sue the police officer and possibly the police service for breach of contract in civil court. Damages could potentially result.

2. In the criminal proceedings, even though the police did not have authority to offer the deal, the Court might rule that it would be an abuse of process not to implement it and require the Crown to proceed on the terms of the deal. Alternatively, if the case strikes the Court as egregious misuse of authority by the police, there could even be a stay of proceedings.

3. If step 2 occurs, there would likely be considerable internal discussions between the Crown office and the police service about the respective roles of the police and the Crown.

4. Having steps 1, 2, and 3 laid at your feet is not a good career move for a police officer.


As I said, I'm just spit-balling. I don't know if this sort of situation has ever come up.
  #57  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:51 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Seems even if you're the head of the FBI, talking to the cops can get you in trouble...
Quote:
...Meanwhile, McCabe's conduct is also under review for possible criminal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., which has already interviewed McCabe's onetime boss, former FBI chief James Comey.

The IG concluded that McCabe misled investigators.

McCabe has denied any intentional wrongdoing. Instead, he said, any lapses in his memory or mistakes in his interviews with the IG and others were mistakes derived from the chaos inside the FBI under siege from Trump and his allies.
  #58  
Old 06-13-2018, 11:57 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Mondegreen View Post
I'm assuming you are talking about the US, but it is probably worth a data point to note that the British caution is now, "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.Ē Source.

That seems to indicate that being silent may not be a good idea, although I guess saying absolutely nothing until your lawyer arrives does not negate your rights.
As I understand it, it means for example if you suddenly say a few months after your arrest "I was watching the telly with me granny at the time" then the prosecution is entitled to say "you didn't say so when arrested" the implication being you made it up after the fact. Whereas the prosecution in the USA is not allowed to say "he wouldn't tell us where he was that night". i.e. you silence cannot be used to imply you are hiding something, and the fact that your alibi showed up much later also cannot be brought up.
  #59  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:30 PM
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Is this a jurisdictional thing? Loach mentions that his department prohibits this, but I don't know of a constitutional limit here. Given police can lie, I would figure offering fake deals would also be on the table. Is that not right?
In order for a statement to be admissible, it must be 'voluntary'. This is a separate question than whether it was preceded by a miranda warning, and the person waived their right to stay silent. The reason for the voluntary standard is to prevent police coercion; the obvious example being a beating, but the law has also included psychological coercion as inducing involuntary statements.

So, while the line is fuzzy (i.e. IIRC, in one famous case, the cops were talking amongst themselves about the desire to give the victim a 'Christian burial' when the suspect interjected with the location of the body; this was not deemed coercive conversation), police cannot blatantly lie with promises of leniency to obtain a confession.
  #60  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:45 PM
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
...The cop on the street does not need to give you a chance to find a lawyer first, but then, you do not have to answer his questions or wait around. If he does detain you, then - there's a bunch of technicalities here, but if you are detained then you are under arrest and Miranda applies...
I know that you qualified this with "a bunch of technicalities", but a more accurate summation is that there are 3 types of police interactions:
1) Voluntary - you are free to leave at any time (even if you are not aware that you can do so). As such, your discussion with the cops is deemed a choice you are making, so your statements are not the product of an interrogation. Totally admissible.

2) Investigatory stop - I made this post to include this middle ground. The police can, in fact, detain you without actually arresting you. At this point, you are not free to leave, but that requires that the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. (This is often termed a Terry stop, because of the seminal case, Terry v. Ohio, which ruled that police are allowed this intermediate period of detention). The limitation is that the police can only detain you for a 'reasonable amount of time' and their investigation must be 'reasonably related' to their suspicions.

Point being, you may be taken into handcuffs, or put in the back of a patrol car, without actually being arrested. The cops do have a legal right to ask you to identify yourself and can also ask questions pertinent to their safety (i.e. "do you have a gun", "is their anybody else inside the house?"), and they don't first have to mirandize you.

3) Arrest - this requires probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and may require an arrest warrant. Obviously, at the point of arrest you are going to be put into handcuffs and put into a police car. But, even then, the police don't have to mirandize you unless they intend to interrogate you. If, as a suspect, you keep jabbering away ("I didn't do anything. I was in the kitchen with my brother the whole time! There were other guys who did the deed! I saw one run away."), police don't have to stop you from making statements that can be used later at trial.
  #61  
Old 06-13-2018, 12:51 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,034
After looking into it a bit - I think it's a bit grey. Voluntary is key, but what constitutes voluntary is probably case by case. Here is the most concise summary I could find:
Quote:
Although police have long been prohibited from using physical force, they are able to use a variety of powerful psychological ploys to extract confessions from criminal suspects, including the use of deception during interrogation. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to falsely claim that a suspect's confederate confessed when in fact he had not (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and to have found a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene when there were none (Oregon v. Mathiason, 1977), determining such acts insufficient for rendering the defendant's confession inadmissible. State courts have permitted police to deceive suspects about a range of factual matters, including, for example, falsely stating that incriminating DNA evidence and satellite photography of the crime scene exist (State v. Nightingale, 2012).

Although deceptive interrogation practices are generally allowable, they are not without limits. For instance, courts tend to be intolerant of police misrepresenting a defendant's legal rights, such as telling a suspect that his or her incriminating statements will not be used to charge the suspect (Commonwealth v. Baye, 2012). It is important to note that because the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry is fact specific, determinations of the limits of police deception are case specific. In People v. Thomas (2014), the New York Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that the officers' conduct in eliciting incriminating statements from a father suspected of killing his infant son rendered the defendant's statements involuntary as a matter of law.
  #62  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:11 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,335
I find this advice so strange, thinking of four encounters with the police:

1) When my car stereo and CD collection was stolen, I absolutely talked with the cops without a lawyer present. Obviously I wasn't a suspect here, so in all these cases it needs to be clear that obvious victims can talk with a lawyer.
2) I had a paycheck stolen in 1994 when it fell out of my pocket. Four years later, in the same town, a different paycheck was stolen from my mailbox. After the police came to my house to take my statement, they left--and then like 90 seconds later one of them knocked on the door again. "That's a real coincidence, isn't it?" he asked. "You getting two paychecks stolen, what are the odds?" It suddenly seemed like he thought I was running some sort of scam. I shrugged and reiterated what had happened, and that was the end of it (except that the new thief got caught).
3) When I've been stopped by a cop for speeding or for having an expired registration, I've always talked with them.
4) Long ago my mom owned some land in the country, and on the night of a meteor shower I and some friends drove out there and laid some blankets in the grass and watched the sky. A dumbass neighbor called the cops (for no reason other than seeing a car out on this land that as far as they knew was uninhabited), and the cops came out and shone flashlights in our eyes and accused us of trespassing and implied we were smoking pot. I explained everything to them, gave them my mom's phone number, denied the pot-smoking--and after some general harassment of us, they left.

In none of these cases did I demand an attorney first. In all of these cases, I think the only effect of demanding an attorney would have been that I'd be out a few hundred bucks and the whole interaction would've taken a lot longer.

What exactly are the parameters under which people are saying to lawyer up? Would that advice apply to any of these circumstances I described above?
  #63  
Old 06-13-2018, 01:40 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
After looking into it a bit - I think it's a bit grey. Voluntary is key, but what constitutes voluntary is probably case by case. Here is the most concise summary I could find:


Voluntariness is a different issue from a plea bargain, though.
  #64  
Old 06-13-2018, 02:41 PM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post

"I can detain you here until the drug K-9 arrives to inspect your car."

"Acknowledged."

Now he has to decide if he should waste everyone's time with what may be an unproductive K9 search. If you're lucky, he won't - or he will, but the dog won't find anything. But you don't help yourself by confessing upfront, consenting to a search, or lying in an attempt to avoid being arrested.
I did that, and the K-9 officer had the dog jump on my hood during the search. Then he said the dog had signaled, so they searched my car anyway.

Nothing was found. I don't do drugs, they haven't been in my car, and too many police officers are jackholes.
  #65  
Old 06-13-2018, 02:45 PM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I find this advice so strange, thinking of four encounters with the police:

1) When my car stereo and CD collection was stolen, I absolutely talked with the cops without a lawyer present. Obviously I wasn't a suspect here, so in all these cases it needs to be clear that obvious victims can talk with a lawyer.
2) I had a paycheck stolen in 1994 when it fell out of my pocket. Four years later, in the same town, a different paycheck was stolen from my mailbox. After the police came to my house to take my statement, they left--and then like 90 seconds later one of them knocked on the door again. "That's a real coincidence, isn't it?" he asked. "You getting two paychecks stolen, what are the odds?" It suddenly seemed like he thought I was running some sort of scam. I shrugged and reiterated what had happened, and that was the end of it (except that the new thief got caught).
3) When I've been stopped by a cop for speeding or for having an expired registration, I've always talked with them.
4) Long ago my mom owned some land in the country, and on the night of a meteor shower I and some friends drove out there and laid some blankets in the grass and watched the sky. A dumbass neighbor called the cops (for no reason other than seeing a car out on this land that as far as they knew was uninhabited), and the cops came out and shone flashlights in our eyes and accused us of trespassing and implied we were smoking pot. I explained everything to them, gave them my mom's phone number, denied the pot-smoking--and after some general harassment of us, they left.

In none of these cases did I demand an attorney first. In all of these cases, I think the only effect of demanding an attorney would have been that I'd be out a few hundred bucks and the whole interaction would've taken a lot longer.

What exactly are the parameters under which people are saying to lawyer up? Would that advice apply to any of these circumstances I described above?
For 3 and 4, you could just not answer questions, period. You have that right. The burden is on law enforcement to show you have violated whatever law.
For 4- maybe tell them it is your mother's property; who has standing to report 'trespassers'? We don't have to let them harass us.
  #66  
Old 06-13-2018, 03:50 PM
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
For 3 and 4, you could just not answer questions, period. You have that right. The burden is on law enforcement to show you have violated whatever law.
For 4- maybe tell them it is your mother's property; who has standing to report 'trespassers'? We don't have to let them harass us.
Here's the thing: you do have the right to not answer questions, but the police might take your refusal to answer even basic, non-intrusive questions as suspicious, at which point you will likely be detained (e.g. possibly handcuffed and then frisked for police safety) while they investigate further.

So, from a practical standpoint, if you have done nothing wrong (and you know you have done nothing wrong), most people will reasonably decide to communicate with law enforcement in order to avoid the appearance of acting suspicious, thereby justifying a delayed detention.

Now, if you have nothing but time on your hands. there is no harm in refusing to talk to the police, at all. But be prepared to advise them of who you are while they run a check for warrants and probably search your immediate area. It would help, at this point, to explain that your reticence is a "civil rights" kind of thing so they can at least understand what's going on. Once they run out of ideas, they should let you go...

Generally, though, and as I noted upthread, there really is no harm in talking with the police, provided that a) what you say is not inconsistent with the evidence and b) what you say is not, in itself, incriminating. If you put this into practice, you can figure out that it basically applies if you are truly innocent. If you are guilty of something, though (say, you have illegal fireworks in a cooler in the back seat), there is still no harm in truthfully answering that you are driving home, that you live in town, or that you work at the local Piggly Wiggly. It's only when the subject of the cooler comes up that you shouldn't propose a story - better to just demure vaguely, along the lines of "I have nothing to say about that".
  #67  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:25 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
After looking into it a bit - I think it's a bit grey. Voluntary is key, but what constitutes voluntary is probably case by case...
As I understand it, even for a Terry stop, to detain you there has to be something more than you are just walking down the street. There has to be some articulatable reason why you might be a suspect in a crime. And then, if I recall my Terry Stop lore, they can for example pat you down for weapons, but not search so thoroughly that they find that tiny baggie of powder in your pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I did that, and the K-9 officer had the dog jump on my hood during the search. Then he said the dog had signaled, so they searched my car anyway.

Nothing was found. I don't do drugs, they haven't been in my car, and too many police officers are jackholes.
The old saying is - you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. If the cops want to be dicks, they can be. Scratching your hood was just a slight additional "fuck you" from a guy on a power trip. Sniffer dogs are notorious for responding to handler cues as much as to real data. (I wonder what would happen if the dog found extreme chili powder in your floor carpet?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
For 3 and 4, you could just not answer questions, period. You have that right. The burden is on law enforcement to show you have violated whatever law.
For 4- maybe tell them it is your mother's property; who has standing to report 'trespassers'? We don't have to let them harass us.
The corollary to "say nothing" would be - "say only the facts and as little as possible". What tends to get people in trouble in a need to ramble on, thus presenting more facts for the suspicious types to pull apart. For #4 it might also have helped to remind them that you as agent of the owner did not invite them onto the land, so now that their curiosity was satisfied, they were free to leave.
  #68  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:33 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Just to reiterate - in crime dramas (Law & Order 101) the police carefully don't offer a deal - they only tell you "make things easier for all of us" if you talk.
But that wasn't the way back in 80's. Either the police have changed, or crime dramas have changed.
  #69  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:57 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Here's the thing: you do have the right to not answer questions, but the police might take your refusal to answer even basic, non-intrusive questions as suspicious, at which point you will likely be detained (e.g. possibly handcuffed and then frisked for police safety) while they investigate further.

So, from a practical standpoint, if you have done nothing wrong (and you know you have done nothing wrong), most people will reasonably decide to communicate with law enforcement in order to avoid the appearance of acting suspicious, thereby justifying a delayed detention.

Now, if you have nothing but time on your hands. there is no harm in refusing to talk to the police, at all. But be prepared to advise them of who you are while they run a check for warrants and probably search your immediate area. It would help, at this point, to explain that your reticence is a "civil rights" kind of thing so they can at least understand what's going on. Once they run out of ideas, they should let you go...

Generally, though, and as I noted upthread, there really is no harm in talking with the police, provided that a) what you say is not inconsistent with the evidence and b) what you say is not, in itself, incriminating. If you put this into practice, you can figure out that it basically applies if you are truly innocent. If you are guilty of something, though (say, you have illegal fireworks in a cooler in the back seat), there is still no harm in truthfully answering that you are driving home, that you live in town, or that you work at the local Piggly Wiggly. It's only when the subject of the cooler comes up that you shouldn't propose a story - better to just demure vaguely, along the lines of "I have nothing to say about that".
To me, this means the famous "right to remain silent" is kind of a fraud. If silence can get you detained and investigated, you don't really have the right to remain silent, do you. I think the Miranda wording is misleading and dishonest, until a person who is stone-cold silent from the very beginning, and gives no indication that they're even listening, is treated as completely innocent.
  #70  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:04 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,893
Missed edit window:

Of course the person has to comply with physical instructions such as don't come any closer or keep your hands where I can see them.
  #71  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:19 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
The corollary to "say nothing" would be - "say only the facts and as little as possible". What tends to get people in trouble in a need to ramble on, thus presenting more facts for the suspicious types to pull apart. For #4 it might also have helped to remind them that you as agent of the owner did not invite them onto the land, so now that their curiosity was satisfied, they were free to leave.
Imagining three versions of this conversation:
Quote:
Me: I'd like to remind you that as agent of the owner I did not invite you onto the land, so now that your curiosity is satisfied, you are free to leave.
Cops: Oh! Right, good point! Bye then!
or:
Quote:
Me: I'd like to remind you that as agent of the owner I did not invite you onto the land, so now that your curiosity is satisfied, you are free to leave.
Cops: Are you fucking with us? I think I smell weed. All right, put your hands behind your back, asshole.
or even:
Quote:
Me: I'd like to remind you that as agent of the owner I did not invite you onto the land, so now that your curiosity is satisfied, you are free to leave.
Cops: Are you kidding, sir? We're out here because a neighbor reported a disturbance, and I see no proof that you own this land. You're behaving suspiciously, and I swear I smelled weed earlier. We're doing everything by the book, so you can cool it with your smart mouth.
Which conversation do you think is most likely?

If all I want is to return to stargazing, is telling the cop (in whatever terms) to get the hell out of there going to get me back to stargazing fastest?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-13-2018 at 07:19 PM.
  #72  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:58 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 35,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
That rolls back to post chappachula's post #13. Does he recommend never talking to a cop at all, even if you're just a witness to an event?
It really depends on the tone and circumstances. If they have read your your rights or called you into the station or are detaining you, yes, STFU and tell them you want a lawyer.

If it is casual conversation, sure you can tell the cop you saw Car A run the stop light and hit car B. And you're a jerk if you don't.
  #73  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:18 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Just to reiterate - in crime dramas (Law & Order 101) the police carefully don't offer a deal - they only tell you "make things easier for all of us" if you talk."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
But that wasn't the way back in 80's. Either the police have changed, or crime dramas have changed.
Are you sure you're not confusing the police with the prosecution? Sometimes there will be an ADA present during an interview and they can offer a deal but I can't. And that is one thing I can't lie about. I cannot tell someone "I will only charge you with negligent homicide instead of 1st degree homicide if you confess." And I believe there is a section on the plea questionnaire that asks if such a thing was offered.

And if the prosecutor offers it it's worded such as "If you plead guilty to this I will only charge you with this, but then you will have to allocute." It is a word game admittedly but not one I can play and when the DA plays it it's not worded "confess or else".
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix

Last edited by pkbites; 06-13-2018 at 10:19 PM.
  #74  
Old 06-14-2018, 12:49 AM
OPD1975 OPD1975 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 1
I'm an LEO with over 25 years on the job, and I can tell you that what you need to concern yourself with is "spontaneous declarations" prior to being interviewed by police. For example; I pull up to a crime scene and a person runs up to me and says, "I hit him in the head with this club because he called me a dirty name." That spontaneous declaration is admissible in court, without the suspect first being admonished of his/her rights under Miranda vs Arizona. Spontaneous declarations are exempt from the Miranda admonition. The Miranda admonition is only required prior to when the arrested person is going to be interviewed by police.

Lawful arrests are made under "probable cause" not simple verbal admissions. "Probably Cause" is defined as a set of set of circumstances that would lead a "normal" person to believe a crime has been committed and the person being detained has committed that crime. Again, Miranda admonition is only required prior to a police interview, and not required in conjunction with a lawful probable cause arrest.

Suspects are arrested based on probable cause. Suspects can be detained, arrested, searched, booked, and incarcerated pending trial, without any interviews or asking him/her any questions, all based on probable cause alone. If a suspect does wave his/her 5th amendment rights and agrees with talk to me after the arrest, then that's just icing on the cake for me and makes the prosecutor's job easier.

It should be noted that the Miranda admonition is only required in a police investigation when "the criminal investigation has focused on a person, or persons, as a possible suspect". While investigating a crime, I can talk with dozens of witnesses, bystanders, and associates, without any Miranda admonition given to anyone. But, when that investigation singles out someone, or a group of individuals, as possible suspects in the crime, the they must be advised of their 5th amendment rights before any questioning is done. The Miranda admonition is total and absolute. Once the 5th amendment is invoked by a suspect, from that point on it is always invoked. Any further questions and interviews stop completely and are not admissible in court. No coercion, promises, or deals are made by the police to get a suspect to "talk". The district attorney's office is the only entity authorized to make any "deals" with a suspect.

Last edited by OPD1975; 06-14-2018 at 12:50 AM.
  #75  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:00 AM
buddha_david buddha_david is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Beyond The Fringe
Posts: 28,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPD1975 View Post
Lawful arrests are made under "probable cause" not simple verbal admissions. "Probably Cause" is defined as a set of set of circumstances that would lead a "normal" person to believe a crime has been committed and the person being detained has committed that crime. Again, Miranda admonition is only required prior to a police interview, and not required in conjunction with a lawful probable cause arrest.

Suspects are arrested based on probable cause. Suspects can be detained, arrested, searched, booked, and incarcerated pending trial, without any interviews or asking him/her any questions, all based on probable cause alone. If a suspect does wave his/her 5th amendment rights and agrees with talk to me after the arrest, then that's just icing on the cake for me and makes the prosecutor's job easier.
I'm starting to think the biggest risk of not talking to police is suddenly getting labeled in the media as "A Person of Interest"; which, legally, is not the same as "Suspect" but most lay people think it is.
  #76  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:18 AM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPD1975 View Post
The Miranda admonition is only required prior to when the arrested person is going to be interviewed by police.
But not surprisingly most people think the moment one is arrested they get mirandized thanks to shows like L&O. They're fighting with the suspect, huffing and puffing while trying to give them their rights.

In reality more than 90% of my arrests don't include Miranda because I have no reason to question them: I already know what they did and what the facts are. Every now and then someone trots out of the booking room after making bond and says "Ha ha, i'm going to go free because you didn't read me my rights!". I'd love to see the look on their face when they consult with an attorney and are told I didn't have to.

Now, Loach may come in here and say that he has to give Miranda no matter what. But I believe that has to do with some ruling only pertaining in his specific state/jurisdiction.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #77  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:57 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
If silence can get you detained and investigated, you don't really have the right to remain silent, do you.
Sure you do. Temporary detention and investigation, while perhaps annoying, isn't legally considered a punishment/penalty. Detention is subject to restrictions; it's not allowed to go on and on and on while the cops pore over your life and belongings looking for anything they could conceivably arrest you for. Pulled over for speeding? You can be detained there at the side of the road for a few minutes while the cop discussed the matter with you and checks your license status, but if you don't want to say how fast you're going, he can't retaliate by interrogating you for an hour about all the places you've been for the past week to see if maybe you did something illegal that he could arrest you for. Detained because they think you might have been involved in a recent robbery? You can help eliminate yourself as a suspect by explaining that you were at a watersports fetish party when the robbery happened, and there are people there who could confirm this. If you'd rather not mention that, the cops will need to do a bit more work to eliminate you as a suspect, perhaps by having the victim look at your face and decide it wasn't you, or by other means. But they can't keep you in jail for two weeks just because they think you were an asshole for remaining silent.

People make similar mistakes about bail. There's a lot of anger when an obviously guilty dirtbag gets released on bail prior to trial, as if a great injustice is being done and the dirtbag has escaped punishment - when the reality is that he has not (yet) been found guilty, and so we're not (yet) allowed to inconvenience the dirtbag by keeping him under lock and key unless we have good reason to believe he won't show up for the trial.
  #78  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:55 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPD1975 View Post
I'm an LEO with over 25 years on the job
Hey--welcome to the board, and thanks for the great post!
  #79  
Old 06-14-2018, 10:27 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
But not surprisingly most people think the moment one is arrested they get mirandized thanks to shows like L&O.
Goes WAAAAAY further back than that. Law enforcement shows started doing that ritual not long after Miranda was decided. I'd bet that shows like Adam-12 had scenes like that in the later 60s and early 70s. Might check that out on Hulu when I get back from vacation.
  #80  
Old 06-14-2018, 10:39 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Generally speaking I understand it's best to consult with a defense attorney before having a lengthy conversation with a police officer or prosecutor. Kevin Drum asks whether there are exceptions to this rule:
I have a question for any practicing defense lawyers in the audience: does it ever hurt to refuse to talk to police or prosecutors until you have a lawyer present? Is it ever the case that you lose, say, a chance at immunity if you demand to have your lawyer present before you say anything? And is it considered prosecutorial misconduct to repeatedly try to talk someone out of speaking to their lawyer, even after theyíve said they want to?
Wider context is with regards to an old case described in this link. Emphasis in original. I remind my fellow posters that this is GQ and the question involves facts about the law as practiced in the US. Illuminating international comparisons might be an interesting hijack though, after the question is answered.
While it might not hurt, it won't help you.

There is no real up side when you talk to the police, people think it an officer's job is to stop crime and to help give justice, when in truth they only gather evidence. Think about it, the police need probable cause to stop you, that is they already suspect you of a crime, they need evidence that you committed a crime and thus the police will ask for your side of the story.

Now according to the courts, after you're arrested you must ID yourself (note in some states if you are stopped by the police you must ID but the police must have probable cause to stop you) then you must say you are going to remain silent and you want a lawyer. That came from a case where that came from the guy was silent but never invoked his right to remain silent, the police asked one question to which he answered yes, and that one word got him convicted. Even as a witness, it might be in your best interest to answer questions.
To use the favorite phrase of officers ďIn this day and ageĒ (as seen in many youtube videos), itís in your best interest to NEVER talk to the police unless a lawyer is present. We donít live in Mayberry, itís not the 1950ís and the police arenít your friends.

Hereís the advice I gave my son, the ONLY things you tell an officer is ďI invoke my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer.Ē
  #81  
Old 06-14-2018, 10:44 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
This is a question on a USA technicality.

Don't people in the US already have the right to remain silent, before anyone tells them so?

Why, in the example of a cautious police interaction, was the person articulating his refusal to answer? Why not remain silent, for real?
According to the Supreme Court you MUST say you're invoking your right to remain silent, this come from a case where the defendant didn't speak for 2 hours and 45 minutes then said yes to one question. He argued the fact he was silent for almost 3 hours was the same as him invoking his right to remain silent, the court ruled that you must say that you invoke that right before you remain silent. Basically speak up before being silent.
  #82  
Old 06-14-2018, 10:47 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
Suppose a police officer comes to your door saying, "I'm sorry, but I need to talk to you about your daughter. When did you last see her?" You have the right to insist upon consulting with a lawyer first, but if you do so, you are almost certainly moving yourself over from concerned parent to prime suspect.

(Of course that might happen anyway, depending on the facts of the matter).
If your daughter is missing YOU ARE THE PRIME SUSPECT no matter what, until you prove you're not.
  #83  
Old 06-14-2018, 11:13 AM
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
Think about it, the police need probable cause to stop you, that is they already suspect you of a crime...
This is factually incorrect. Police do not need probable cause to stop you, as I explained upthread.

Police can conduct a Terry stop based on less than probable cause. They can detain you based merely on articulable suspicion, although the detention will be limited in scope and duration.

And police can always walk up to you and engage you in conversation. If you stop and talk to them, even if it's because you feel obligated to do so, it doesn't mean that police needed probable cause of anything to converse with you. It's your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR
To me, this means the famous "right to remain silent" is kind of a fraud. If silence can get you detained and investigated, you don't really have the right to remain silent, do you.
Well, in theory, if the interaction is voluntary, the cops won't be able to use your silence as a basis to detain you (e.g. if you are standing at an intersection when an accident occurs, and a copy walks up to you to ask what you saw, and you respond with, "sorry, I don't talk to cops", they should just shrug their shoulders and walk away).

But there is such an obscure line about what justifies an investigatory Terry stop. Things as vague as "furtive movements" can be used to justify the detention, although probably not if that is all the cop can describe. I mean, legally you should be able to run away when a cop approaches. But if you do so after the cop saw you "acting suspicious", I would predict that it would usually result in being stopped, frisked and questioned.

Last edited by Moriarty; 06-14-2018 at 11:14 AM.
  #84  
Old 06-14-2018, 01:58 PM
Profound Gibberish Profound Gibberish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 278
To anyone reading this, Please Please take this advice:

If you are under investigation for anything and the Police ask to talk to you, NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT. NEVER.

Giving a witness statement is one thing--you saw x do y to z. No problem.

But if the Police are investigating YOU--NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT. NEVER.

You will be screwed. Police are allowed to lie to you--that is well-settled law. Police care about closing the case, not solving the crime by apprehending the actual perpetrator. If you volunteer ANY information and the Police have no other suspects, and the DA wants to clear a case for the next election, you will be screwed.

(And, yes, I am speaking from experience. A misdemeanor issue that would have been absolutely nothing if my lawyer had spoke to the Police instead of me being "helpful.")

Last edited by Profound Gibberish; 06-14-2018 at 02:02 PM.
  #85  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:53 PM
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Goes WAAAAAY further back than that. Law enforcement shows started doing that ritual not long after Miranda was decided. I'd bet that shows like Adam-12 had scenes like that in the later 60s and early 70s. Might check that out on Hulu when I get back from vacation.
Yeah, I know. Law and Order is just a modern example.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #86  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:09 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
If your daughter is missing YOU ARE THE PRIME SUSPECT no matter what, until you prove you're not.
Actually if your daughter is missing it’s probably just a missing person case. If you watch too much A&E you might not think so.

Even if it’s a murder that’s not how the real world works either. I won’t go into a play by play of strategy but you don’t randomly pick a PRIME SUSPECT in the beginning and run at them until they prove otherwise and then pick a new one, repeat as necessary. You look at the totality of the evidence as it’s available. To call anyone a prime suspect even without capital letters from the beginning of an investigation is overly dramatic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
This is factually incorrect. Police do not need probable cause to stop you, as I explained upthread.

Police can conduct a Terry stop based on less than probable cause. They can detain you based merely on articulable suspicion, although the detention will be limited in scope and duration.
That’s correct. What many don’t understand is a motor vehicle stop is a type of Terry stop the burden of proof for a motor vehicle stop is a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. It’s not probable cause. Often the officer will have actual PC but he doesn’t have to. He sees you drive through a red light. He already has probable cause to write you a ticket, he certainly has more than a RAS to stop you. Now let’s say you are driving along in your brothers car. Unknown to you your brother is suspended and has a warrant. The officer does a random inquiry on your plate and it shows your brother suspended. You fit his description. You look like the DMV photo that comes up especially throug the light legal tint of your window. He can articulate a reasonable suspicion that you are driving while suspended. Of course you are not so no PC for a ticket but the stop was valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Profound Gibberish View Post
To anyone reading this, Please Please take this advice:

If you are under investigation for anything and the Police ask to talk to you, NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT. NEVER.

Giving a witness statement is one thing--you saw x do y to z. No problem.

But if the Police are investigating YOU--NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT. NEVER.

You will be screwed. Police are allowed to lie to you--that is well-settled law. Police care about closing the case, not solving the crime by apprehending the actual perpetrator. If you volunteer ANY information and the Police have no other suspects, and the DA wants to clear a case for the next election, you will be screwed.

(And, yes, I am speaking from experience. A misdemeanor issue that would have been absolutely nothing if my lawyer had spoke to the Police instead of me being "helpful.")
You are not saying anything profound and it’s slreafy been said multiple times. I have never met a police officer that wants to put innocent people in jail.

Last edited by Loach; 06-14-2018 at 05:10 PM.
  #87  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:15 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 35,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Even if itís a murder thatís not how the real world works either. I wonít go into a play by play of strategy but you donít randomly pick a PRIME SUSPECT in the beginning and run at them until they prove otherwise and then pick a new one, repeat as necessary. You look at the totality of the evidence as itís available. To call anyone a prime suspect even without capital letters from the beginning of an investigation is overly dramatic.

l.
I am not so sure this applies all the time, since my LE buddies have said they always look at the husband first if the wife is murdered.
  #88  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:00 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,316
Personally, I have never talked to a cop without a lawyer. Ever. It has pissed some cops off, and I have spent some time in a holding cell as a result. Such is the price for exercising your rights. The alternative was worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I'm not aware of any case quite like your example, Czarcasm, but the Supreme Court of Canada has held that police cannot try to dissuade someone from speaking to a lawyer. As agents of the state, they have to respect the individual's exercise of their constitutional rights and must hold off on questioning as soon as the individual asserts their right to speak to a lawyer.
Huh? I'm probably misunderstanding you here, but I know from personal experience that the RCMP are under no obligation to stop questioning a suspect until that suspect has a chance to contact legal council. From the wikipedia page on Right to Silence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
While Section 13 of the Charter guarantees the right to remain silent, Canadian law does not entitle the criminal suspect to have counsel present during the course of an interrogation. Once a suspect has asserted their right to counsel, the police are obliged to hold off in attempting to obtain evidence until the suspect has had a reasonable opportunity to contact legal counsel. Also, in Canada even if the suspect emphatically asserts his decision to remain silent, the police may continue to interrogate him. Although this may give the suspect the impression that his claim of the right to silence is meaningless or that he has no such right, it is perfectly legal. In R. v. Singh (2007 SCC 48), the suspect invoked his right to remain silent 18 times and the police nevertheless continued to question him after each assertion of his right, but the Supreme Court of Canada found this consistent with Canada's Charter rights protections.
My complete layman's understanding of this is that while you may have the right to remain silent under the charter, the police are under no obligation to respect it and usually don't. However, I'd love to get a real lawyers opinion.
  #89  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:53 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I am not so sure this applies all the time, since my LE buddies have said they always look at the husband first if the wife is murdered.
Yes thatís the tv answer.

In reality if there is a murder it is more often someone the victim knows. Itís not always the husband or anyone in particular. The way to lose a case is to make assumptions and donít follow the evidence. Unless there is something pointing in a specific direction right from the start you look at motives and alibis of everyone close to the victim. You donít start an investigation with a prime suspect. Ok sure if heís literally holding a smoking gun over the body but other than that... If for no other reason than you donít want to be on the stand and have the defense ask ďWhy didnít you look at Fred, Joe, and Bobby? You zeroed in on my client from the beginning.Ē
  #90  
Old 06-14-2018, 10:04 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Canuck View Post
Huh? I'm probably misunderstanding you here, but I know from personal experience that the RCMP are under no obligation to stop questioning a suspect until that suspect has a chance to contact legal council. From the wikipedia page on Right to Silence



My complete layman's understanding of this is that while you may have the right to remain silent under the charter, the police are under no obligation to respect it and usually don't. However, I'd love to get a real lawyers opinion.


You're confusing the right to silence (s. 7 of the Charter - not s. 13 - Wikipedia has it wrong in the quoted part of that article)) with the right to counsel (s. 10(b)).

Right to silence is just that. You have the right to remain silent (s. 7). In a custodial situation, the police do not have to hold off if you assert the right to silence. It's up to you to keep your trap shut. Right to silence is not tied to the right to counsel, unlike the situation in the US.

Right to counsel is different. If you assert the right to counsel, the police have to hold off and give you an opportunity to consult counsel. If they keep talking to you after you assert your counsel right, anything you say to them is potentially subject to exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Leading case on the duty to hold off is R. v Prosper:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../1176/index.do

Not meant as legal advice, of course, but just to discuss the general rules relating to the right to counsel. If you are facing a possible criminal investigation, you should consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
  #91  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:23 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 75,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
Having a lawyer present is going to hurt you in the pocketbook; and lawyers charge serious money.
Under Gideon, if you're charged with a crime for which you could be imprisoned, you're entitled to representation by the public defender at no cost to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
...You canít pretend to be someone else to avoid a warrant or give false personal information to get out of a ticket....
When I was a prosecutor I heard about a case where a guy gave his cousin's name at the time of his arrest. Turned out the cousin was in a lot MORE trouble, and there was a long printout of warrants for his arrest. Shown this, all of a sudden the guy remembered his own real name.
  #92  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:04 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Yeah, I know. Law and Order is just a modern example.
L&O does try to make an effort to be legally correct from time to time. I remember being fairly impressed with it in the early days when the competition would be shows like Matlock, where it seems legalities took a serious back seat to drama.

The most egregious example I remember from L&O was when the DA made a deal, and afterwards they were hauling the guy away.
"Hey, I had a deal!"
"Should've read the fine print. That deal only applied in the district of Manhattan. You did some of those other murders in Queens."

Of course, I have trouble imagining that actually working in court in real life... At the very least, he ha a case for inadequate lawyer representation if his lawyer didn't catch that.
  #93  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:50 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
L&O does try to make an effort to be legally correct from time to time. I remember being fairly impressed with it in the early days when the competition would be shows like Matlock, where it seems legalities took a serious back seat to drama.

The most egregious example I remember from L&O was when the DA made a deal, and afterwards they were hauling the guy away.
"Hey, I had a deal!"
"Should've read the fine print. That deal only applied in the district of Manhattan. You did some of those other murders in Queens."

Of course, I have trouble imagining that actually working in court in real life... At the very least, he ha a case for inadequate lawyer representation if his lawyer didn't catch that.
L&O was often excellent when it came to points of law and in particular they would use specific aspects of New York law. They were excellent until the plot required them to deviate from reality. The plot always wins.

My biggest problem with L&O was their idea of what probably cause for an arrest looked like. The cases were often very flimsy.
  #94  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:37 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,656
What I Believe is the Case In My State

IANAL.
  • The police can stop me any time they have reasonable, articuable suspicion that I commited a crime, witnessed a crime, have knowledge of a crime, or I am in some way acting suspicious. This is a Terry stop. I may be detained "briefly" during a Terry stop, but "briefly" has no definite limits.
  • If asked, I must identify myself by giving my true, legal name, address, and birthdate. My right to remain silent does NOT extend to a refusal to provide this information. I don't have to produce documents, but I do have to answer truthfully.
  • Apart from that, I do not have to answer any questions.
  • If I refuse to identify myself, they CAN arrest me for that, and my right to remain silent has not been violated.
  • If I am driving a car, if the cops pull me over, I must produce my driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. My right to remain silent does NOT entitle me to refuse to produce those documents. If I refuse to produce the documents, I can be arrested for that alone.
  • I do not have to answer any other questions.
  • I can only be arrested upon probable cause that I have committed a crime. Refusal to answer any questions beyond my name, address, and birthdate, and to produce my license and registration if I am driving, may not be used as probable cause for arrest.
  • I DO NOT have the right to an attorney, and to speak to an attorney, until after the police start asking me questions. I do not have the right to an attorney immediately upon arrest. I do have the right not to answer any questions.
It was mentioned that the police might find it suspicious if I ask for a lawyer. AFAICT, in my case, they would be correct in finding it suspicious.

Because, if my wife is found dead, if I did it, I would immediately give my name, address, birthdate, and then ask for a lawyer. If I didn't, I would blab my fool head off. If my wife is found dead, of course they are going to suspect me. And the more I talk, the more likely it is that I talk my way into handcuffs if I did it, and somebody else into handcuffs if I didn't.

Regards,
Shodan
  #95  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:54 PM
Orwell Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 1,975
I was with you until your last paragraph, Shodan, and really disagree with the last sentence. Do you think there haven't been spouses (or parents or children) who have been wrongly arrested for murder? And even some who have been wrongly convicted? If one's spouse is found dead, it seems to me to be very prudent to not answer questions without a lawyer present, whether you did it or not. A lawyer presumably a) knows the law, b) will be more clear-headed, c) won't allow you to blabber on and incriminate yourself (whether you did it or not), and d) has your best interest in mind.
  #96  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:43 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,143
I was doing 85mph in a Porsche Cayenne on a freeway in eastern Oregon where the speed limit was 65 when I got pulled over.

Policeman: I think you were doing about 75 there
China Guy: That sounds reasonable
Policeman: Any good reason?
China Guy: laughs out loud "no officer"

and that was about the end of it. Oh, I couldn't find the insurance card either.

I'm Sure it helps to be a bald white guy in his 50's.


Where was my jeopardy? He had me clocked and radared. I was deferential and made no excuse. Me thinks I saved myself a ticket, but please chime in if I'm missing a crucial point (in case I ever pull such a stunt again).
  #97  
Old 06-16-2018, 08:56 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
This is factually incorrect. Police do not need probable cause to stop you, as I explained upthread.

Police can conduct a Terry stop based on less than probable cause. They can detain you based merely on articulable suspicion, although the detention will be limited in scope and duration.

And police can always walk up to you and engage you in conversation. If you stop and talk to them, even if it's because you feel obligated to do so, it doesn't mean that police needed probable cause of anything to converse with you. It's your choice.


Well, in theory, if the interaction is voluntary, the cops won't be able to use your silence as a basis to detain you (e.g. if you are standing at an intersection when an accident occurs, and a copy walks up to you to ask what you saw, and you respond with, "sorry, I don't talk to cops", they should just shrug their shoulders and walk away).

But there is such an obscure line about what justifies an investigatory Terry stop. Things as vague as "furtive movements" can be used to justify the detention, although probably not if that is all the cop can describe. I mean, legally you should be able to run away when a cop approaches. But if you do so after the cop saw you "acting suspicious", I would predict that it would usually result in being stopped, frisked and questioned.
Reasonable articulable suspicion is what most people call probable cause, the officer has a reason to believe that you have, are or about (I have a big problem with the last one) to commit a crime in order to detain you, a vague you're acting suspicious isn't a reason, (in truth nothing really happens to an officer who illegally detains you or arrests you in most cases) then terry vs ohio comes into play. Personally the way I think about it is RAS lets them hold you PC let's them arrest you.

There is currently a double standard when it comes to running away from an officer, based on how much crime is in a neighborhood. In a "bad" neighborhood the court have ruled that that police can chase, stop and frisk people if their location contributes to a suspicion of criminal activity. In a "nice" neighborhood running away doesn't contribute to a suspicion of criminal activity. Or as some legal experts put it "If you can walk away, you can run away. It shouldn't matter the speed at which you move away."

A "casual conversation" is a way some police use to get around probable cause, "No I didn't detain them we were just talking." I've seen more than once where someone was a suspect, the officer never said they were detain, and started to question the person. In one case the person asked if he was being detained, the officer said no, but when they tried to walk away the officer said, "Now you're being detained."

So best not to talk to the police at all.
  #98  
Old 06-16-2018, 10:52 AM
Crafter_Man Crafter_Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If asked, I must identify myself by giving my true, legal name, address, and birthdate. My right to remain silent does NOT extend to a refusal to provide this information. I don't have to produce documents, but I do have to answer truthfully.
A couple things about this:

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?

2. In Ohio, you must provide your name, address, and birthdate (when asked by an LEO) only if you are a suspect of a crime or you have witnessed a serious crime. If it's just an encounter, you do not need to provide this info. The problem is knowing whether it's an encounter or a Terry Stop. To determine this, ask if you're free to go. If you're not free to go, it is a Terry Stop, and thus you must provide the info.
  #99  
Old 06-16-2018, 11:12 AM
KMS94 KMS94 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 38
I've retired, but I have many friends who haven't yet. One swears that if he ever stopped a car for a minor traffic violation, and the operator pulls a dismissive hand move along with, "You don't need to see my identification, these are not the droids you're looking for," he would mime it back and return to his car. As you could guess, he's a serious Star Wars fan. I may try that if ever pulled over. Good moods and a little humor always went a long way with me on traffic stops.
  #100  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:43 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 35,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
A couple things about this:

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?
SCTUS has said you must ID yourself, but IIRC IANAL they left it open to the degree of what constitutes "ID".
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 08:25 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