I understand that a police officer can lie to a suspect while interogating them to gain a confesson but can a police officer tell a person being interogated that the person is wrong about an important fact when the person is telling the truth ?
Yes.
They can lie – about anything. They can tell the suspect “we have video of you doing it”, they can tell them that “that’s a felony, with a 25-year minimum sentence”, they can tell them “your accomplice already confessed, and said you fired the gun”, etc.
If those lies entice the suspect into confessing, the confession can be used in court, and the police lies don’t prevent that.
Tbonham
I understand what you said, this is my hypethical question. The suspect states they did something (which would provide credibility to thier story) and its true. The police in turn tell the suspect that they are wrong and what they think is incorrect. 4instance :
suspect tells police they turned sharply and ran over a curb , police tells suspect there is no curb and what they ran over was a pereson and repeat there was no curb it was a person you ran over. the truth is there was a curb & police knew it.
IANAL, but that kind of deceptive statement sounds legal to my ears.
Yup, they can. They can even ask you to explain how come you didn’t stop and help the guy you ran over. They can show you pictures of the dead guy’s widow and children (in reality, the first picture that came up on a Google image search for “family”) and ask you how you feel about ruining their lives. They can ask you things “off the record” and still use your words in court.
They can say whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. Any mind game you can think of, they can and will use to get you to say whatever it is they want you to say to build their case.
You also have the right to remain silent…and not say anything.
So if you are stopped by the police can you literally say nothing to them? Can you simple tell them that you won’t answer any questions without your lawyer present?
At what point does your “right to remain silent” become “an obstruction of justice”?
If you are ever detained by the police, for any reason, do not talk to them. Period. End of story.
Now, if it’s a traffic stop, you’re better off just admitting what you did, if anything, or whatnot. The cops have significant power to change your circumstances there, and they will respect you. They have no authority in any more serious matter.
IANAL; the police, IIRC, cannot promise you immunity or anything else not in their power to give. They always say “things will go easier if you confess”, but they can’t say “you won’t do any prison time for this if you confess” or what appears to be a deal. Only the prosecuting attorney has the authority to offer that.
They cannot do what looks like threatening - “if you don’t confess, we will frame your mother and she’ll do 30 years…” If it looks like the confession was extorted in return for something, rather than voluntarily offered, there’s the arguement that it was not sincere but basically (like with torture) telling the interrogators what you think they want to hear. Not sure how playing on pathological fears (i.e. turning out the lights on someone who’s afraid of the dark) falls into the torture category, but extreme sleep deprivation in these days of Guantanmo is probably a debatable technique. Is anything anyone says after 36 hours of no sleep at all credible?
However, they can tell you whtever they want, do whatever they want, that puts you in the mood to voluntarily confess. In the case of the “it was a person, not a curb” - well, if you then have a confession that says you hit a person where there should be a curb - a confession that is obviously wrong is not much of a confession is it? “I shot him” when he was stabbed won’t carry much weight in court, it will certainly look like coercion.
If the police are willing to feed you (or “witnesses”) the details for a confession and then lie about it, you’re screwed anyway. The system is full of guys like Hurricane Carter lucky enough to be released because publicity or DNA proves the police “were mistaken”.
When you are granted immunity.
True. In a traffic stop, a police officer has a huge amount of discretion. Being adversarial and challenging and difficult will certainly not earn you the most lenient option. If you are lucky, the police officer is one of the 90% just doing their job who are honest, polite, and appreciate the same in return. Being polite, respectful but concise in stating your case may earn you a warning or a wave-off.
If it’s the 10% who became a policeman because they can push people around, odds are you get nothing no matter what you argue; be prepared to drop your arguments and shut up if the officer does not respond appropriately. If that type senses they can make you squirm by being nasty, they will turn the screws. It’s what they enjoy.
I believe in most states you are required to identify yourself truthfully. And as others have said, if it’s just for a parking ticket or somesuch, it’s really not much use to be ultra defiant.
If you are ever taken to the station however, the only words coming out of your mouth should be “Am I free to go ?”, “Am I under arrest, and if so on what grounds ?” and “I wanna see my lawyer”, in that order. Even, and this can’t be overstated enough, even if you’re absolutely, perfectly, squeaky clean innocent of anything whatsoever.
Which you probably aren’t.