No, I don’t need an aswer fast. I’m just wondering idly.
Assuming I lack the right to decline to answer the questions, which are clearly not about me, why not?
Assuming I do have the right to answer, what legal pressures might the g-men bring against me?
You do not have to answer questions. The FBI or any other law enforcement agency may detain you and ask you questions, but you don’t have to answer them.
It’s not a crime to refuse to answer questions. Keep in mind though if you DO agree to talk to them it IS a crime to lie to law enforcement agents.
You do have a right to a lawyer if you do answer questions, but this will be at your expense.
Even a search warrent does not mean you have to answer questions.
Remember only a judge can order you to answer questions. The FBI may threaten you with a subpoena, in that case if you are served, you still don’t have to answer the agent’s questions but you MUST comply with the subpoena and show up in court. Failure to do so will result in a contempt of court violation and you can be picked up and arrested for that.
Would this have anything to do with my recent post? 
Good to know. They guy next door always seemed kind of shifty to me, and we were just joking about if the police asked us about him what we would say.
I specified FBI because I knew it was a crime to to federal agents. Does the same hold for local & state?
In that case, wouldn’t it be the US attorney’s office asking the questions rather than the FBI?
ETA: Arnold, yes.
I have been questioned by the FBI. I was not the subject of their investigation. I did have my attorney present while I answered questions.
Ultimately, I was subpeonaed to testify in the criminal trial against the target of the investigation as a prosecution witness. The defendant was convicted and sent to prison for 15 years for fraud and imbezzlement.
If one applies for a security clearance, part of the screening process is sending someone to speak with their neighbors and coworkers and asking about them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI was tasked with doing these interviews.
Declining to speak with the agent may delay their clearance as someone may want to investigate the reluctance to speak.
Actually…
When they did my background check for the special agent application process, they contracted it out, specifically to former government law enforcement agents. I think I had former FBI and Treasury agents talk to the people I knew.
What do you think the reasons would be for no explanation? I guess law enforcement faces a lot of reluctance to answer questions about someone when no reason is presented. I’d consider someone who responds without a stated reason given to have a negative biad toward that person. Maybe spilling something others wouldn’t freely mention, but maybe making something up as well. And if they really had a reason to keep secret, they probably use a phony explanation such as a background check for security clearance.
Now that I’ve written, I was interviewed by a treasury agent once about a fellow employee, for the stated reason of a security background check. Hmm?
It was the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that does the clearance investigations, in my experience.
I had a friend who was nominated (recently confirmed) for a Federal Court of Appeals, and the FBI came and interviewed her friends and neighbors, including our priest. They didn’t ask me though, so apparently we’re not that close.
Many years ago the FBI came to my door and asked me about my (former) roommate, who had recently skipped out owing me for some back rent, and sticking me with a couple of long distance phone calls (this was a long time ago, before cell phones). He did explain why he was asking, and I not only answered his questions I volunteered the long distance phone numbers that he had called (which I got from the phone bill).
Call me crazy, but I didn’t think I owed any confidentiality to someone who had stiffed me for a month’s rent plus. And it seemed like a pretty good reason for asking - the roommate’s brother was an escaped felon.
I have a feeling I may have dodged a bullet there, in a manner of speaking. Anyway, it never came back on me. These days I might be more cautious.
Roddy
The feds have chased Martha Stewart and Barry Bonds about untruths told to them when they did not have an obligation to speak to the feds. Martha spent 6 months in the slam, and Barry is still awaiting trial. I’d think very carefully before talking to the police.
OPM (Office of Personnel Management - the “employer” of all federal employees) will give the background investigation to just about anyone. Some agencies rely on their own pool of (as mentioned) retired agents.
My sister was an FBI agent and you wouldn’t believe how much the check. They actually went around in my suburb (about 30,000 people) and knocked on doors at random and asked people about my sister.
I was in junior high and kids that never spoke to me, came up and said the FBI showed up at their door asking about my sister. (I have a unique name so it was easy to figure out)
They were just questioning for her job application and security, but they checked around even to the extent of knocking on doors at random.
In Bonds’ case, it was testimony under oath in front of a federal grand jury. In Stewart’s, she was the target of an investigation and was charged under the very broad 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Neither circumstance is similar to the hypothetical casual conversation described in the original post.
The confusing text of the part of the U.S. Code under which Stewart was charged is here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1001
But, this Justice Department discussion provides more clear insight into when it applies: 916. False Statements to a Federal Investigator | JM | Department of Justice
I figure someone will come through with the do not talk to the police video soon.
The answer is do not talk to them. Even if you believe their motives in talking to you are entirely innocent and the conversation is for the sole purpose of gathering information on your neighbor doesn’t mean they aren’t actually looking for more info about you. They are professionally trained to gather information including things you might not want them to know.
I’ve had OPM, contractors, and the FBI handle the interviews for my clearance. The FBI seemed to handle the more important ones.
I believe they will routinely say something vague like, “Ravenman has applied for a position of trust with the US government.”
Or they could be, you know, doing their jobs and keeping you safe from mobsters and terrorists. Whichever.
Sure then it shouldn’t be a problem for them when I stand by my legal right to remain silent and instruct them to go through my lawyer.
Just because they may be doing their job doesn’t mean anyone should make their job easier by becoming a sucker for them to convict.