I have a meeting to get to. I’ll need you to beat yourself silly and then dump yourself at the ER, 'kay?
I was interviewed by the FBI once. I worked in a small office building that was the target of a bombing attempt - I wasn’t there when the attempt happened and the pipe bomb didn’t detonate.
They interviewed every worker the building, the questions were along the lines of “had I observed any confrontations between other tenants”,“was I aware of any landlord tenant disputes”, etc.
This was all done in spite of the fact that our building housed an obvious target ( some Israeli political organization, I don’t remember the name ). It was ultimately determined that they were the target , but all avenues must be checked out.
The agants weren’t secretive at all about their purpose either, not that it would’ve done much good because the bomb attempt made the papers.
How convenient!!:dubious:
Yep, I heard from a couple of friends, “What the heck did you do?” when my clearance was pending.
Nowadays, I suppose they’d ask “What they heck did you download?”
I was interviewed by an FBI agent once, concerning our neighbor in the apartment complex we lived in. I had spoken to the guy exactly once. The only information I was able to provide was “He plays the bagpipes, because he told me feel free to let him know if the sound disturbed us when he practiced” “Bagpipes, eh? I didn’t know that.” The agent seemed incredulous that that was only information I could provide. Hey, I only talked to the guy once.
Funnier was that my roommate refused to come out of the bedroom to speak to the agent. He was petrified, because had once violated the Mann act.
I assumed he was just doing a background check, but I can’t remember if said so.
I’ve posted it before my ownself.
Except that it really isn’t for when you are being a witness, it’s for when you are a suspect. There’s a HUGE difference.
I beleive that in some cases a Grand Jury, Congress, etc can also do so. ianal.
Which is why I didn’t bring it up in the OP.
When I worked at Los Alamos, the background checks for security clearances were most often done by agents of the Pinkerton Detective Agency (it appears they are now Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations). Although my friends were interviewed by a “Lieutenant Colonel Somethingorother”, so apparently some branch of the military is involved sometimes.
Back in the early 80s I had an agent wandering around my town asking people about me, and the guy who spoke with me said that the general response to the question about if I could be coerced into doing something I normally would not do was that if there was any coersion going on I would be the one doing it … he was highly amused. At the time I had a very strong personality [I hadn’t been in that abusive relationship at the time. It had taken me the better part of 10 years to get over it but I don’t think I am up to being as coercive as before =) ]
If the police are questioning you, are they going to let you know when you change from witness to suspect? Or if you’re a suspect right off the bat, will they warn you “by the way, we’re asking you questions because you’re a suspect?”
Regular watching of The Closer has convinced me of two things:
-
Say nothing to the police other than “My name is Skald the Rhymer, and here is the card with my lawyer’s number on it and the explanation of my position of talking to y’all. I’ll be calling her now if you don’t mind.”
-
Kyra Sedgewick has great wheels.
There are various technicalities which I am sure Gfactor & others would be happy to explain to us, but them reading you your rights or putting you in handcuffs are not very subtle warning signs.ianal
I’m sure there are technicalities. My point was that the persons producing the “don’t talk to the police videos” are telling you “don’t wait until you’re in handcuffs to ask for a lawyer - talk to a lawyer right off the bat.”
I’m the kind of person who would probably wait until the police put me in handcuffs before I refused to talk to them, but the ACLU tells me that I’m being too trusting. (I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, not trying to paint them as an evil organization.)
I suppose if you are psychic and can tell the officers exact motivation for talking to you it would be a non issue. I and I suspect the rest of the world, are not psychic and can only speculate why the officer is talking to me.
Until someone has been tried and convicted of a crime everyone is a possible suspect. If they already tried and convicted someone they have no reason to talk to me.
The video covers why you should not talk to the police even if they tell you ‘you are not a suspect’ It’s actually pretty early in the video he covers that if you don’t want to go through the whole thing.
They may not have a lava moat but they aren’t flying around with angel wings either. They sprout wings I might change my opinion until then I’ll stick be the good legal advice which is ‘DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE’
IANAL but I believe the more-subtle magical moment is when the questioning turns from inquisitory to accusatory.
If you’re in custody, they’ll probably warn you when you become a suspect because that’s the point at which the Miranda warning is called for. The warning requirement only applies in “custodial interrogations.” Custodial means they are either directly or indirectly preventing you from leaving (you could be locked in an interrogation room, or they could just be intimidatingly standing between you and the only exit from wherever you are, for example); interrogation means you’re a suspect. If you’re not a suspect, it’s an investigatory interview.
So, if you’re being seen as a witness but not a suspect, and you’re voluntarily talking to cops but not being held or detained, and you let slip something that ends up incriminating you in the crime, that evidence is admissible. As soon as they realize that you’ve incriminated yourself, you become a suspect. If they don’t tell you, though, that you now can not leave (or do anything to imply that you can’t leave), anything you say will still be admissible even absent a Miranda warning – you’re in an interrogation, but not a custodial interrogation.
And of course they can always just choose not to give the warning. Even if your statements in that interrogation can not be used against you in court, they may still be useful in any ways. It’s not a crime to question a suspect in custody without advising them of their rights. Sometimes it’s an investigatory technique.
(As an aside, one of the most disappointing moments in my TV-watching life came early in the way-below-par final season of the til-then-brilliant show Homicide: Life on the Streets, when they got that all horribly wrong in wrap-up of the story arc featuring James Earl Jones.)