Mea culpa. In my defense, you said that in a different post and I didn’t connect the two.
As I understood the court case about this - a man and his daughter had a heated argument in public, the police were called, and they refused to tell the cop who they were or anything. SCOTUS eventually said - when the police are investigating a possible crime and you appear to be someone involved, you must identify yourself.
I’m sure you didn’t mean that - obviously, if you are pulled over - driving - you must produce a license or otherwise prove you are driving legally.
Sorry - the wording implied obstruction required violence. There are various versions of obstruction. Yes indeed, the police will say or do anything short of what is strictly disallowed to persuade someone to testify.
Notable case I recall in Canada, the cops were investigating a murder. They presented the husband with a signed confession from his girlfriend and told him if he didn’t confess, she would be testifying with immunity to send him to jail. He knew it was a lie, refused to confess so the cops had nothing. When they let him go, he went after them for forgery - girlfriend’s fake signature on paper. It got to the Canadian Supreme Court who said that was OK for police to do during interrogation.
They can threaten everything they want. In the current case in the news with The Former Guy, take note according to Cohen’s book he pled guilty because the NY DA threatened to drag Cohen’s wife into court in handcuffs and charge her too, even though they knew she knew absolutely nothing about the case and they would lose. Apparently this based on the fact she was co-owner of the condo he used as collateral to get the money. He took them seriously, decided to plead guilty rather than put her through all that. It says more about Justice Department tactics than the strength of the case.
What the police cannot do - only the prosecutor can - is offer an explicit deal. The Law & Order shows always couch it in terms if “it will go easier for you…” or “we can help you, put in a good word with the DA…” And obviously if the police fail to heed your request for a lawyer and keep interrogating, that’s not allowed.
However, one SCOTUS case decided that a tactic was allowed - the two police were talking between themselves after the perp asked for a lawyer 'It’s a shame he won’t talk. He could end up doing a lot more time this way." and the perp blurted out incriminating stuff; the court said because they weren’t directly asking him questions, just talking among themselves, that was OK.
Common Law in England has always, in theory, prohibited torture - it is called out in Magna Carta - and was specifically made illegal in England in 1640.
In my state it does - well kind of. It requires force or the threat of force. Many states are similar.
So what is the crime called there for misleading the police (lying about a material fact) or destroying or hiding evidence? Generally that is also obstruction, and it’s why police sometimes falsely threaten to charge someone with it. It’s not obstruction to not volunteer information or evidence, but to actively do something is obstruction. (Hide, destroy, lie, etc.)
As a reference: Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-104 Obstructing a peace officer …
(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority;
[Emphasis added]
Lying to an LEO would probably be CRS 18-1-Part 5 (perjury)
Destruction of evidence is 18-1-610
In theory, torture is not a legal part of the interrogation process in the United States. Theory ≠ practice.
Perjury AFAIK only applies if the person is under oath. (trial, senate hearing, grand jury, sworn deposition, etc.) But let’s say, for example, someone lies and confirms the perp’s alibi when the cops are asking questions and interviewing possible witnesses. In many places, that qualifies as obstruction of justice by materially misdirecting an investigation. Whereas, refusing to confirm or deny the perp was with you is not obstruction, not illegal.
(See Colorado quote.)
Actually I was right - I think. That “under an oath required or authorized by law.” is throwing me.
18-8-503 (So in Part 5 - Perjury)
(1) A person commits perjury in the second degree if, other than in an official proceeding, with an intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his duty, he makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.
So, you’re suggesting your 5th Amendment doesn’t actually protect you from torture? I thought that was your point.
Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to federal investigators. There is US Code that specifically makes it illegal to lie to federal agents. Many states don’t have a similar law.
In my state just lying to a cop is not enough. It may cross the threshold into Hindering Apprehension depending on the lie. Hindering covers your own apprehension or the apprehension of another.
Yeah, Salinas was an absolute BS ruling. But the ruling was/is, you cannot just remain silent, you have to verbally say you want to remain silent or not answer questions. Which, of course, Salinas himself could not have possibly known.
The first line in the Miranda warning:
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
They don’t tell you that remaining silent also works against you and that you must say the magic words and assume everyone knows that.
I don’t understand what you conceivably mean by that.
I do know that police forces use multiple forms of abuse on people before, during, and after arrest, in police cars taking them to holding, in holding, in processing, in jail, in hospitals, and during real or imagined incidents, as well as by deliberate or unintentional neglect. You probably can collect a full bingo card in a single day at Riker’s Island.
Does taking the Fifth have any correlation with these abuses? If so it is not reported. All that the Fifth does is presume that the police will faithfully adhere to the letter and to the spirit of the law at all times. We need to hope that is true for the vast majority. Well, it certainly is with famous, wealthy, powerful, and well-connected users of the Fifth. With everybody else the odds are not as favorable.
The circumstances around Salinas are not as cut and dried as it seems in this thread. Salinas voluntarily agreed to be questioned. He was questioned under circumstances where Miranda did not apply. He answered questions freely then stopped talking for certain questions. In fact he answered every question except one. It’s not that he refused to speak to police but didn’t say the magic words.
There’s also the fact that he murdered two people with a shotgun but that’s not relevant to the discussion of legal theory.
Some do. Hence the saying “you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.”
The police need your words as part of the case against you. If they don’t obtain those properly, then they can’t use them.
(I recall an item once which mentioned that community activist Obama was one of the advocates for the Chicago police videotaping all interrogations. They just didn’t believe that so many perps confessed voluntarily. Video evidence showed that they did).
the key point is - if the police have not been told explicitly “I don’t want to answer any more questions” then they can assume maybe you do. Nothing magic wordy - it’s ambiguous, they interpret it to their benefit. Hence the need to remove ambiguity.
Should not be relevant, but in my experience the courts found exceptions to the rules a lot more with serious crimes than others. I had a murder case with a really bad search that would have been thrown out if they found marijuana plants. But because they found a body, the courts found a way to justify it.
Just human nature I guess.
Sometimes they need even less. This happened recently in Colorado:
Even though Longmont police warned a man four times he was under arrest, told him “we are going to take you to jail” and stood in his doorway, the Colorado Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the man was not effectively in custody at the time.
The 4-3 decision from the Supreme Court meant the Longmont officers did not need to read Brent A. Willoughby his Miranda rights and, therefore, the incriminating statements he made while officers were inside his apartment can be used against him at trial. - SOURCE: No Miranda warning necessary for Colorado man repeatedly told he was under arrest: Supreme Court