Co-operating with the pollice or charges being laid

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

A recent news story on a local news web site says words to the effect that an elderly woman was found dead at the scene of a traffic accident and that she was struck by a car.

Here is the link:

The article concludes with this line:

Police closed the area to traffic to investigate. They did not say whether the driver of the vehicle is co-operating or whether any charges will be laid.

The thing I don’t understand is what is the alternative to co-operation?

Apparently, the driver remained at the scene. Seems to me that is a real big step in co-operation.

But what do they mean when the news article said, “They did not say whether the driver of the vehicle is co-operating or whether any charges will be laid.”

If the driver did not co-operate, did that mean charges would be laid? Is that an either or situation? Either you co-operate with the police or charges will be laid?

Isn’t co-operating with the police tantamount to helping them charge you?

I thought one of the biggest rights people have is, “You have the right to remain silent and if you don’t, then anything you say can be used against you.”

I have a hard time understanding the police. Do they want people to “co-operate” (and Lord knows what they mean by that) so that it will be easier to charge them?

If so, why do they try to make it look like you will be charged if you fail to co-operate?

I just don’t get it. What are they trying to say?

I hate to say this. But if I ever struck and killed someone, I sure do hope I would stay at the accident. But would people expect me to say things to the police that they could use to put me in prison?

Or would it be OK for me to just keep my mouth shut in order to avoid prison. Of course I’m assuming I wasn’t doing anything wrong - like drinking - and when they say “accident”, they mean “accident”. It wasn’t an intentional killing. It really was an accident.

2

I don’t think the article meant it’s an either/or situation. I think it’s saying

The police closed the area and wouldn’t say anything (like)
They wouldn’t say whether the driver was cooperating
(or even) They wouldn’t say whether there would be charges.

3

Seems to be two independent clauses. There doesn’t appear to be a relationship between the two actions.

Non-cooperation. Not answering the police questions.

It’s required by law. Leaving the scene is a crime. Staying isn’t a sign of cooperation as much as it’s a recognition that leaving is a very bad thing.

4

It seems that to the police, non-cooperation means you have shut up. In the US that is your absolute right. The police don’t like it, and will try to con you into saying things they can use against you later.
I think Kunilou has it right, it isn’t an either-or thing. The police simply are not commenting on the driver.
My wife taught Gov’t for many years in high school. One of the things she always told her students was: Give them your name, your DL. After that, SHUT UP. They will threaten you with obstruction charges, many police would prefer you do the talking because it makes their job easier. Too bad. I’m not here to make life easier for the police. It’s the other way around. They are here to make MY life easier.

5

Both clauses are going to be independent either way. This is about intonation.

In typical day-to-day conversation, the confusion with this type of construction is avoided by two distinct manners of intonation. However, this text could have originally been a newscast, and so the intonation was lost.

When you invite someone to your home and you ask the question:

Would you like coffee or tea?

you can use intonation to impart two distinct meanings to the question. One way–restrictive–means the guest has to choose between one of only these two choices. The other means something like, Would you like something to drink? Perhaps coffee? Perhaps tea?

The OP probably incorrectly interpreted the phrasing to be restrictive (because s/he only read the report, and didn’t hear the intontation) – i.e, to mean that there were only two (exclusive) possibilities in this scenario: cooperation or charges.

6

Lawyer.

7

Heh Heh!

I think Toledo Jim has it right.

A lawyer once told me that you only ever have to tell the police three things

  1. your name
  2. your address
  3. your birth date

If you are driving, of course you have to show them your drivers’ license.

But if I ever struck and killed someone while driving, I would be really shook up and it would be very difficult to remember it’s a mistake to talk to the police. But it is a mistake because the difference between talking to them and not talking to them could very well be the difference between a small problem and a very huge problem. I would feel a need to talk with someone about it and I think that is what the police try to take advantage of.

It makes me very angry when I think of all the times police use deceit (like threatening people with obstruct charges) when it’s clearly bogus. But they do it and people fall for it and wind up with a much bigger problem than they would have had they just kept their mouths shut.

P.S. Thank goodness for lawyers. If not for them, who would protect us against the deceitful practices of the police?

8

keeping your mouth shut / stating that you don’t wish to talk to them w/o your lawyer present

It’s not cooperation; it’s doing what is legally required.
Separate, unrelated statements in one sentence.

No, but your seemingly innocent statement that you were texting/dialing/eating/shaving/putting on lipstick/reaching for the stuffed animal that your child dropped can prove inattentive/careless/reckless driving, which could lead to charges.

9

The thing is, you’re not a lawyer, so you’re not qualified to judge which things you might say could help the police put you in prison. Which is why you don’t say anything without a lawyer present and advising you.

10

Good advice it you’re guilty.

11

And just as good if not guilty of wrongdoing, of course, per the attorneys/firms (defense/personal-injury lawyers, mainly) I worked with as a go-fer to put myself through college. Anyways…

Three cops in my family (mom/step-dad/bro) have told me uncountable times over the years how easy it is for them to put words never said into a person’s mouth in the ‘official report’ if ‘suspect’ talks even minimally about event(s), fwiw. Two of the three stated never doing so (and I believe 'em totally!), but I know one of them rather routinely did so when possible for conviction/promotion/statistic purposes, etc. Seemed very proud of that aspect, too, unfortunately, with all the boasting he did about it to me many times! :eek: Ain’t uncommon either, according to that third LEO…

12

I think that is excellent advice. My lawyer once told me that if I’m ever arrested, I only have to tell the police 3 things.

  1. My name
  2. My address
  3. My birth date

As far as actually talking with the police, I think it would be reasonable to say, “I want my lawyer present before I answer any questions.”

Also, if they read me my rights and ask me if I understand what they have read me, I think I should say “no”. Probably just for the fun of watching them try to figure out how to handle that (because everyone always says “yes”). But more importantly to prevent them from asking any more questions.

After all, I could always say that I can’t answer any of their questions since I didn’t understand what they had read me.

By the way, I was only ever arrested one time and they played some dirty tricks on me.

One dirty trick was they sent a very pretty blonde police woman in to see me and when I said that I didn’t want to answer any questions because the other cop told me I didn’t have to answer any questions, she said to me:

“Oh! Well this has nothing to do with your arrest or your legal case. This is just a few questions to help us set your bail.”

I am very embarrassed to admit this. But I fell for it. The questions she asked was about my education level and I didn’t see any harm answering those kinds of questions. But I never should have answered any of her questions. Not one. Later, I just felt so stupid for telling her anything.

The other dirty trick was they handed me a pen and said they needed me to sign my name. They explained it had nothing to do with my case (which was completely bogus), but as soon as I took the pen in hand, they announced, “He is left handed”. So, it was just a trick to see if I was right-handed or left handed.

BTW, the case against me was totally bogus and I never even had to plead anything. My lawyer got me out of there within a couple of hours.

13

By the way, if they ask me if I understood the rights they had read me and I answer, “No”, they will naturally then ask me, “what didn’t you understand?”

At that point I could say any number of things to have some fun with them. But not to be rude to them. I’d probably just say that I need to ask my lawyer about that before I could answer them and cut it short - just keep it to that.

I think it’s always a big mistake to be rude to the police. There is no need for that and they could very well beat up on someone who is rude to them. I think you should always talk politely to them. Why not?

14

Nope. They will, at best, tell you your rights again. You don’t have to understand them; they’re only required to point them out to you if they’re going to interrogate you. Also, anybody who grew up watching TV in America has heard them a thousand times and saying you don’t get it is lying to the cops. People are saying it’s a bad idea to tell them the truth without a lawyer present… try lying to them and see how well that goes over.

15

No, do not speak to them without legal representation. Truth has nothing to do wit it.

16

That’s kind of my point.

17

In the US, the police don’t set bail - the judge does.

And I don’t see any way in which bail “has nothing to do with your arrest or your legal case”. Which makes it rather a clumsy lie, since it obviously contradicts itself.

The handwriting thing is a bit more of a gray area. In some jurisdictions in the US, the cops have you sign a document that you have had your rights explained to you. I don’t know if they can force you to sign it, especially if you want to play the rather petty game of pretending not to understand your rights. But discovering you are left-handed by watching you sign strikes me as similar to the “plain sight” exception to searches. The cops are not required to ignore things that are right in front of them. Thus if they can see that you are left-handed when you sign a document, I doubt if a judge would exclude that piece of evidence.

IANAL. Void where taxed or prohibited. Past performance is no guarantee of future profit. May cause drowsiness. Tell your doctor if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours.

Regards,
Shodan

18

Some people apparently watch too much TV.

19

There is no way that would end well for you. I had a friend who got arrested and was just chatting with the officer as she sat handcuffed in his car, and asked the seemingly innocent “So how often do you un-holster your gun?”
The police report contained the line “defendant showed excessive interest in the officer’s weapon”.
So I would imagine you saying you didn’t understand would get you a “defendant seemed confused and disoriented in following officer’s questions and instructions.”

20

“Do you understand these rights as I’ve explained them to you?”

“Do we ever truly understand anything in life?”