I’m not sure exactly how the system works, but a big part of why my 10 year-old son got a felony charge (long story) was because of something innocuous I told the school cop. The principal and the cop knew what I meant in the interview, and it sounded like the person from the DA’s office knew what I was talking about when I confirmed that was what I said. Next thing I know, the DA feels they have enough to move forward with a felony charge against a 5th grader for “Bringing a deadly weapon onto school grounds.” Penis ensued. They sent a squad car to arrest the kid (he wasn’t home but his mom was and managed to make arrangements for us to bring him to court).
The point is (and there are LOTS of details omitted for the sake of brevity, so let’s not dwell on that) While the police force may be acting out of a sense of serving and protecting and just generally getting to the bottom of things with no intent to screw anybody, the DA’s office might have a different agenda and torture information in the police report to suit it’s needs. SO I guess in my OP, the entity I mean when I say “The Law” is the DA. The police are simply “the long arm of The Law”, the DA is “the brains of The Law”.
Not ignore. You have expanded that past just a suspect interview several times. Since I’m not the only one to see it I don’t think its just me. I’ll say it again maybe more clearly, if you are being detained or questioned as a suspect you will most likely be better off consulting an attorney. There may be a few circumstances in which you can do as well or better by yourself but in general you should consult an attorney.
Your wife does not work under the constraints of the law. She does not have to follow Miranda. I’m guessing that the employees don’t have to talk to her but they could be fired if they don’t cooperate. Not the same thing at all.
How suspects and witnesses are treated is different by law. I can lie about certain things and its perfectly legal. People think that means there is no limit to how much I can lie. I can not lie to you and say you are not a suspect when I have evidence that you are. I can not pretend you are not a suspect and therefore not give you Miranda.
In your scenario I would question you and then verify the information. If there is no evidence against you I can not hold you. When you want to leave you leave. The interview will just be one aspect of the investigation.
What do you mean by “knew”? A hunch or do I have other evidence? I can’t give you a number but over the years there have been many persons of interest that have eliminated themselves from a case by their interviews. I won’t go into details because I don’t want to pinpoint where I work. But there is a recent case in which dozens of people were involved or saw an incident. But we are only looking for one main actor. Many people have talked an eliminated themselves as suspects. And many have helped pinpoint the actor.
None that I can think of. Sounds like Perry Mason.
Either those statements or your lack of memory is even close enough to get you charged with anything.
Back when I used to take a particular security job off duty parents would come up to me with their little kids and say things like “You better be good or I’ll have this police officer arrest you.” I would always bend down to the child and tell them mommy is kidding and that police officers are there to help them and take care of them when there is trouble. The last thing I would want is for a child to be afraid to come to a cop when there is an emergency. YMMV.
When it comes to juveniles being questioned for a crime, I do many juvenile cases. I am not allowed to speak to a juvenile suspect without the parent present unless I get consent from the parent. That is mostly true for victims and witnesses too, depending on circumstances. This may vary from state to state.
I have no idea how to respond since you gave very little information. Its hard for me to guess what one little innocuous statement you could make that happen. In my county our prosecutors never want to go forward with anything unless its a slamdunk. Its hard to image what comment a third party made that made them think they could get a conviction.
As I’ve said in other threads, the burden of proof for an arrest is probable cause. But in most cases that is not enough. The prosecutor will not want to go forward with a case he thinks he can’t win even if there is probable cause. Without more information I can’t even form an opinion about your case.
I did remember one from many years ago. I wasn’t directly involved but I was there. A batshit crazy guy blurted out a confession to a murder when the detective was going to question him about a burglary. I don’t know if it fits your criteria. Batshit crazy guy came in specifically to confess to the murder because it was eating him up inside. Its just that the detective didn’t know he was involved in that.
So Loach, assuming the saw the video, what specifically do you disagree with?
My other question is that if we agree that if I am a suspect then I should be talking to my attorney and not you (assuming we do agree on that), how would I know if I’m a suspect. We’re at the hospital with Mrs. Cad in ICU having just been shot and you put your arm around me and suggest we go get a coffee, how do I know the difference between you trying to get info to help catch the alledged burgler and you trying to catch me in a lie/contradiction/saying something stupid because you think I did it. If my statements couldn’t be used until you Mirandize me it would be different but potentially ANYTHING I say can be used against me.
If you are a suspect you will be told you are being questioned with regards to a certain hypothetical matter and given your Miranda warnings. If it is shown that you were seen as a suspect and not afforded your rights everything you say will be thrown out. Of course that only matters if there was enough probable cause for an arrest and it gets to that point. Then there will be a suppression hearing. Hell, there is usually a suppression hearing even when everything is followed to the letter.
Let’s say the police are lazy and corrupt. They’ll ignore the evidence and just railroad some innocent schlub into a conviction and they’ll fake evidence to do so if necessary.
If that’s case, then the last thing you want to do is piss those cops off. That’ll be the reason they’ll use to set you up.
And asking for a lawyer? Good luck with that. These cops are willing to lie to put you in prison already. You think they’re going to give you a lawyer just because you asked? They’ll slap you a few extra times for asking. And later when you claim you asked for a lawyer, they’ll all swear you didn’t. They’re already lying about everything else. Why not lie about denying you your Miranda rights?
The real mistake people make in interrogations isn’t talking to the cops and telling them they’re innocent. The stupid mistake people make in interrogations is talking to the cops and telling them they’re guilty. That’s a serious mistake but one I’ve seen lots of people make.
They think “I’ll admit what I did but I’ll explain why it happened.” It doesn’t matter. The cops won’t care why you committed a crime and they won’t let you go because you think you had a good reason. All they’re going to pay attention to is the part where you said you committed the crime and they’ll ignore the rest.
Or they’ll think “I’ll admit what I did and I’ll be in less trouble.” There’s a remote possibility this might be true. But it’s remote. You should never offer any kind of deal without discussing it with a lawyer and getting his approval for it.
So the rule of thumb is you can talk to the police. But never admit any guilt to any crime to the police. If you’re in a situation where you think admitting guilt might be a good idea, stop and discuss it with a lawyer first.
Better yet – you were in that area, but not at the crime scene. The police now have you admitting you were in the area, and a witness placing you at the crime scene. You’re fucked. If you keep your mouth shut your attorney can attack the witness’ credibility, but there you went placing yourself in the area…
That’s only true if the person being questioned in is a situation where the person cannot actually leave or if he reasonably believes he is not free to leave. If you approach me when I’m out in the yard removing weeds from the garden, you can start a friendly conversation and then start asking anything you want without Miranda warnings and it will stick. Miranda only applies to* custodial *interrogations.
The police had latched onto the idea that Tori’s mother was involved in the abduction due to her drug problems, to the point of launching a “Mr. Big” sting, (not allowed in most countries) trying to stroke her ego to make her talk. Not even close, the abductor’s girlfriend was someone she’d met, but she had no clue about the abduction. Seems the police were short a clue, too.
Jewel was even invited by a flattering FBI agent to make an “instructional video” about the case, including “part of the script” was for him to sign a waiver of Miranda right to an attorney on camera.
Guy Paul Morin - Redrum The Innocent Revised Edition: 9780140271850: Books - Amazon.ca
Morin appeared to be the “weirdo next door” so police latched onto him to the exclusion of all other suspects. He went through several trials, appeals, retrials, until the evidence finally fell apart.
When a case relies on anyone “in the next cell” who recounts how the suspect “confessed to them” you know the prosecutors are desperate for anything because their case is crap.
Need we go on? The police can, and do, latch onto the wrong person. Susan Nelles, because she asked to talk to a lawyer instead of breaking down and crying about dead babies. Morin for being a bit “different”. Once this happens, the less ammunition you give, the better.
In my favourite instruction manual of all things legal, *Law & Order *- have you noticed how many times they delight in arresting the suspect in the most public and demeaning method possible, usually at work and likely guaranteeing the guy is out of a job even if he makes bail? Then, half the time they are wrong about their suspect.
My preferred version is “no, Officer, is there a problem?”, but then, I’ve been pulled over because a tyre looked like it needed inflating or because they were doing general ID checks on women about my age. Neither involved me doing anything wrong.
This starts to go into an area in which I can only state what is true in New Jersey. I am not up on case law in all 50 states. It is similar throughout the country but there are variations. State courts are allowed to make a stricter interpretation of the law than SCOTUS.
I don’t know where your scenerio would fly but it wouldn’t here. Miranda applies to any suspect interview. There is no pre-interview allowed. And unless there are exigent circumstances, all such interviews must be recorded.
Hang on a sec, what seems to be missing in all the talk/don’t talk scenarios is actual guilt. If you are guilty, might be guilty, have probable cause to be guilty, in any of those scenarios, don’t talk. If you are absolutely positive you weren’t guilty, why not talk?
In the case of the child arrested for the felony above, he must have done something. Don’t talk.
In the case of the sexy female driver, talk as much as you want.
Do you make the best decisions when you’re stressed? When you’re scared? Tired? Intimidated? Angry? Resentful? If the answer is no, then you shouldn’t talk, because maybe you’re feeling all of the above and then some.
If it’s 2 AM, you’re hauled in, you’re confused, nobody’s answering your questions, you’re put into a windowless room with a heavy steel door clanking behind you. You’re hungry, your head is pounding at the temple, your mouth is dry and you could really use some water and/or a bite to eat. You’re told if you come clean, you can have all the food and sleep in the world. Yipee! Maybe, just maybe, you’re sleep-deprived and irrational enough to trade a confession for some R&R.
Or maybe the cop, who’s awake and energized and an expert at this, is going to beat your sorry ass at this game of wits.
You’re not at your best, after all.
Not wanting to talk to cops is not an admission of guilt. The cop is going to do whatever it takes to get you to talk. Maybe he’ll sense you’re a quick-talker and nervous. So he’ll be quiet and allow you to fill in the awkward silence until you blabber about bullshit and viola - inconsistencies in your story.
So you nervously try to clarify what you meant, but you’re just opening more and more tears in the fabric of your story for the cop to rip through.
So Mr. Cad, you waited two days to tell us that your wife isn’t actually a Law Enforcement Officer? Did you suddenly just remember that? It became a convenient fact during this interview, didn’t it? Anything else you’d like to admit? This is your last chance to come clean while we can still help you. Next step is out of our hands.
Example #1 Canada, laws are different can’t comment.
Example #2 Canada, laws are different can’t comment.
Example #3 Richard Jewel. The FBI thoroughly investigated him. As they should have. He was completely exonerated by that investigation. So it worked the way it should have. The problem was not the investigation, it was the presumption of guilt by the media. It was the media’s treatment of him that was disgusting and he won several lawsuits because of it. Unfortunately it seems to have become the norm now. Nancy Grace, looking at you.
Example #4 I’m not going to buy a book and read it so I can comment on this thread to you.
Law and Order is entertainment. There is a lot they do for dramatic effect that does not make sense. Arresting someone publically like that is just dumb for many reasons.
I’m no expert, but I learned from watching My Cousin Vinny that if the sheriff asks you when you shot the clerk, don’t answer with, “I shot the clerk!?!”
