# Can police lie about having witnesses against you? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2008, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325 "2008-06-01T03:18:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/21 "2008-06-02T00:34:19Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Once you say "“I want to speak to my/an attorney. 2 Am I free to go?” they can;t continue to interrogate you either. [/QUOTE] Seriously? That doesn’t sound right at all. What I understood is that you can refuse to speak to the police, but they don’t have to stop talking to you just because you want your attorney. They can keep talking to you as long as it takes for your attorney to get there, right? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/22 "2008-06-02T00:46:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Trickery, deceit, even impersonation do not render a confession inadmissible, certainly in noncustodial situations and usually in custodial ones as well, unless government agents make threats or promises." United States v. Kontny, 238 F.3d 815, 817(7th Cir.2001) (citing Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969)). As the First Circuit has noted, > 65 > > trickery is not automatically coercion. Indeed, the police commonly engage in such ruses as suggesting to a suspect that a confederate has just confessed or that police have or will secure physical evidence against the suspect. While the line between ruse and coercion is sometimes blurred, confessions procured by deceits have been held voluntary in a number of situations. > 66 > > United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 408 (1st Cir.1998); see also United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030, 1039(9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (holding that an inspector’s misrepresentation that a piece of evidence existed, while reprehensible, does not constitute coercive conduct); Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147, 1158 (10th Cir.1997) (holding that a confession was voluntary despite the fact that an officer falsely told the defendant that physical evidence connected him to the crime). [osdir.com](http://court.osdir.com/F3/372/372.F3d.1048.html) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/23 "2008-06-02T00:49:18Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Seriously? That doesn’t sound right at all. What I understood is that you can refuse to speak to the police, but they don’t have to stop talking to you just because you want your attorney. They can keep talking to you as long as it takes for your attorney to get there, right? [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > If the suspect effectively waives his right to counsel after receiving the Miranda warnings, law enforcement officers are free to question him. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 372-376 (1979). But if a suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer hasbeen made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation. Edwards v. Arizona, supra, at 484-485. This “second layer of prophylaxis for the Miranda right to counsel,” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 176 (1991), is “designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights,” Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350 (1990). To that end, we have held that a suspect who has invoked the right to counsel cannot be questioned regarding any offense unless an attorney is actually present. Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990); Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988). “It remains clear, however, that this prohibition on further questioning–like other aspects of Miranda–is not itself required by the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on coerced confessions, but is instead justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose.” Connecticut v. Barrett, supra, at 528. > **[Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1949.ZO.html)** ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/24 "2008-06-02T00:53:25Z")
[QUOTE= Mosier] They can keep talking to you as long as it takes for your attorney to get there, right? [/QUOTE] Yes and no. They can talk NEAR you, but they can’t talk TO you. I remember a case from Crim Pro class where the guy had requested his attorney present, and while the cops were driving him from one place to another they spoke “to each other” very loudly about what a shame it would be if the poor victim lay in the woods without a Christian burial, and, guiltridden, he told them to pull over and took them to the body. That stood up, as I recall. I did, however, get a gentleman’s B in Crim Pro (and haven’t gotten there in BarBri yet), so take my “cite” with a grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/25 "2008-06-02T01:24:15Z")
You’re probably thinking of _Innis_. > [@](#): > > That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=446&invol=291](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=446&invol=291) In other words, \*Miranda \* only limits custodial _interrogation_. If they aren’t interrogating, as the term is defined in the quoted matter, any statements are admissible. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/26 "2008-06-02T01:46:59Z")
I know that on “The First 48” whenever a suspect lawyers up, the detectives pretty much shut down and don’t say another word to the suspect. they also get pretty frustrated too, because then they have to go out and actually find physical evidence against the suspect instead of just getting a confession. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/27 "2008-06-02T02:57:01Z")
[QUOTE= diggleblop] I know that on “The First 48” whenever a suspect lawyers up, the detectives pretty much shut down and don’t say another word to the suspect. they also get pretty frustrated too, because then they have to go out and actually find physical evidence against the suspect instead of just getting a confession. [/QUOTE] I hate it when people don’t make my job easy, too. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/28 "2008-06-02T03:06:35Z")
[QUOTE=Cub Mistress] Nothing would (or should) stop you from lawyering up in a case of innocence. I would certainly do so, were I innocent or guilty. Maybe it is the cost of an attorney that has some people hesitating when they know they are innocent of the crime. [/QUOTE] Perhaps it’s the idea that I, an upstanding citizen, one who doesn’t run with the wrong crowd, one who leads an exemplary life, would need a lawyer when _obviously_ the whole thing can just be cleared up right now (without needing to wait for a lawyer, etc) if I were just to cooperate with the policy. Obviously it’s all a misunderstanding, right? Seriously, should I look for a criminal attorney now, give him a retainer, maintain a relationship with him on the off chance that someday I’ll be picked up for a crime I didn’t commit? The first paragraph is for exemplary purposes. I’ll choose the lawyer route. But then the second paragraph is serious. What do you do in a situation like that? If you’re in the interrogation room and ask for a lawyer, but don’t have a lawyer, what’s the procedure? I can’t imagine they give a a net connection to let you research someone. They could call a public defender to be assigned to you, but unless you’re desolate, you still have to pay him for his time, and all he can do is refer you to someone that you’re going to want to some research on anyway. Do you just pay the public defender to secure some means of bail for you, and then you go off and look for your own guy or gal? Or is there not even any means testing for the public defender at this time, and you can use him for _x_ services for _y_ time at taxpayer cost? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/29 "2008-06-02T03:20:36Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] Seriously, should I look for a criminal attorney now, give him a retainer, maintain a relationship with him on the off chance that someday I’ll be picked up for a crime I didn’t commit? The first paragraph is for exemplary purposes. I’ll choose the lawyer route. But then the second paragraph is serious. What do you do in a situation like that? [/QUOTE] My advice is yes. Get to know a lawyer you can call, just in case. I have two: one for the corporate stuff and one for personal stuff. Just in case, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2008, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/30 "2008-06-02T03:26:42Z")
[QUOTE=aruvqan] So, what would stop someone who was actually innocent from lawyering up? [/QUOTE] Because as “everyone knows,” only guilty people need lawyers. You don’t want to look guilty, do you? I remember how outraged the public was when the parents of JonBenet Ramsey refused to cooperate with the police without legal counsel; it was as if they had actively worked to stymie the investigation, and further convinced most people that they had to be guilty. (Not saying the Ramseys were or weren’t guilty; just saying that retaining a lawyer was actually a perfectly reasonable and appropriate thing for them to do, regardless of guilt.) Also, I think fear plays a big part. Talking to the police is scary for most people. We want to believe the cops are on our side, and if we do things their way they’ll play straight with us and everything will work out. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/31 "2008-06-03T00:59:34Z")
However much you may think you are innocent, maybe there is some crime you are guilty of. Some cops were hassling me in Redondo Beach or was it Hermosa?), I mentioned something about “a guy with a watch this expensive isn’t a hippy” so they made me take off my fairly expensive watch, found it had a scratch in the casing through the serial number and arrested me for “possession of an item with a marked or altered serial number”. Their probabable cause was that I admited I had a watch I couldn’t afford! It was thrown out, of course. Most police are straight up dues minde, you- but these weren’t. I found out later that had been “asked to leave the LAPD”! :eek: so joined the “small town” PD. So you might start blabbing away to some cop, knowing you are 100% innocent of the crime they are asking you about, and inadvertently admit some other “crime”. Yes, to some police “lawyering up” makes you look guilty, but so does “being too helpful”. :rolleyes: Thanks,\*\*Thalion \*\*for this _"For what it’s worth, DrDeth is right. Lawyering up is the only smart thing to do. I am constantly amazed at how many people don’t do that and end up giving me a confession_" Thanks to Gfactor for the great cites. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/32 "2008-06-03T15:11:32Z")
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup] Yes and no. They can talk NEAR you, but they can’t talk TO you. I remember a case from Crim Pro class where the guy had requested his attorney present, and while the cops were driving him from one place to another they spoke “to each other” very loudly about what a shame it would be if the poor victim lay in the woods without a Christian burial, and, guiltridden, he told them to pull over and took them to the body. That stood up, as I recall. I did, however, get a gentleman’s B in Crim Pro (and haven’t gotten there in BarBri yet), so take my “cite” with a grain of salt. [/QUOTE] That was [Brewer v. Williams](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0430_0387_ZS.html), 430 U.S. 387 (1977). The Court actually ruled in that case that the “Christian burial” speech designed to elicit an incriminating response from Willaims, so it did constitute custodial interrogation in violation of his right to counsel. Notwithstanding that, the evidence of the body came in on retrial. At his new trial the prosecution introduced the girl’s body but not the confession, and Williams’ lawyers argued that they couldn’t, reasoning that since it was the product of his unlawful interrogation, it was “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The Supreme Court ruled that the body could come in as evidence in [Nix v. Williams](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=467&invol=431), 467 U.S. 431 (1984), saying that since search teams were moving toward the body at that moment anyway it would have been inevitably discovered. This was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/33 "2008-06-03T15:18:27Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] However, one should note that the DA is not only not allowed to lie, he is also supposed to tell you if he has found any evidence that casts doubt on your guilt. [/QUOTE] Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/34 "2008-06-03T15:34:18Z")
[QUOTE=Balthisar] The first paragraph is for exemplary purposes. I’ll choose the lawyer route. But then the second paragraph is serious. What do you do in a situation like that? If you’re in the interrogation room and ask for a lawyer, but don’t have a lawyer, what’s the procedure? I can’t imagine they give a a net connection to let you research someone. They could call a public defender to be assigned to you, but unless you’re desolate, you still have to pay him for his time, and all he can do is refer you to someone that you’re going to want to some research on anyway. Do you just pay the public defender to secure some means of bail for you, and then you go off and look for your own guy or gal? Or is there not even any means testing for the public defender at this time, and you can use him for _x_ services for _y_ time at taxpayer cost? [/QUOTE] You don’t need to have a lawyer at the point, you just need to invoke your right to one to cut off interrogation. If you’re not under arrest, they’ll have to let you go. If you are, you either bond out and find an attorney, have a family member find one for you, or make an application for a court appointed attorney or public defender. ---
**Author:** ![iturntoyou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e36b37/32.png) [@iturntoyou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iturntoyou)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/35 "2008-06-03T19:02:42Z")
The thing is there are “rights” and what really happens. As one poster pointed out your income level greatly effects this. Now some cities have started taping their entire questioning process but most don’t. In the end it’s your word against a cops. The police’s most effective weapon is income. I commit a horrible crime, get taken in and call my fancy lawyer and post $25,000 bail because I have the ablity to get money. Another poor slub gets taken in and can’t afford the $100 bail and can’t afford a lawyer so the guy get’s one appointed, but that can take a long time, because the public defender is busy. So the cops question you and you say no, the cops say “Fine, we’ll just put you in the holding cells with the drunks, murderers, addicts and other people who will beat the crap out of you,” OR you can answer our questions and be safe. I recall once I got a ticket for going 5mph over the limit and hadn’t realized my driver’s license expired. So they actually took me in as I had nothing to give the cop. Normally you surrender your driver’s license for a ticket. This really hacked me off. I told them “I don’t have anyone to call and I don’t have $100 on me to post the bail.” They threatened me with all sorts of horrors, like locking me up for the weekend and taking me to the county jail. I said “OK let’s go,” After five hours they “I-bonded” me out. Now it was stupid of me to be that stubborn and the cops were within their right, but it just hacked me off they could’ve I-bonded me straight off. It’s not like I ever had a criminal record or anything. ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/36 "2008-06-03T19:17:34Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team. [/QUOTE] Yeah, [Nifong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong) was disbarred for that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/37 "2008-06-03T19:45:31Z")
[QUOTE=iturntoyou] The thing is there are “rights” and what really happens. As one poster pointed out your income level greatly effects this. [/QUOTE] It gets worse. How about, “Plead guilty to this felony, and we’ll recommend straight probation, no jail time. Plead guilty and you walk tonight.” Now, if you can bond out, you can say to them, “Screw you. I’ll hire a lawyer and beat this crappy charge which will fall apart in a trial situation.” And you waltz into trial in a few months and beat the charge, or get a misdemeanor plea as a last-minute alternative to trial from a Commonwealth’s Attorney who knows his case is weak. If you can’t bond out… your employer fires you after you don’t show up for work for three days 'cause you’re in jail. And your landlord evicts you, because you’re not at work earning money to pay rent because you’re in jail for the couple of months it will take for a trial date to open up. So, when the Commonwealth says, “Plead guilty, and you walk tonight…” which option do you think you’re going to take? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/38 "2008-06-03T20:45:37Z")
[QUOTE=phouka] Yeah, [Nifong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong) was disbarred for that. [/QUOTE] But not before his victims went through a year of horrible shit, and their families went millions of dollars into debt. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/39 "2008-06-03T21:06:48Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team. [/QUOTE] Yes, but he wasn’t allowed to lie. That’s why he’s no longer a DA, or even a lawyer. That’s also why he’s facing more lawsuits than most tobacco companies. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2008, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325/40 "2008-06-03T21:14:29Z")
[QUOTE=Maus Magill] Yes, but he wasn’t allowed to lie. That’s why he’s no longer a DA, or even a lawyer. That’s also why he’s facing more lawsuits than most tobacco companies. [/QUOTE] Well, he was allowed to lie until he wasn’t. A lot. For about 9 months. And it took extraordinary efforts by top notch lawyers to catch him. DA’s at least in NC, have tremendous power. It’s true that they are not \*supposed \*to lie, but I suspect that many of them get away with a great deal of lying. Hell, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that Nifong was a lying sack of shit almost from day one, but it still took almost a year to nail him. As late as November the Association of District Attorneys was offering to help him with his case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-police-lie-about-having-witnesses-against-you/451325.md?page=3)