True regarding the $130, but they didn’t know how much was in the register. I knew I started with about a $30 bank and it had been a slow night.
And I’m not saying I’d never speak to a cop- I have since, for a variety of reasons (though, to my knowledge that was the closest I’d ever come to being a suspect in something).
But it does back up the idea that cops frequently draw conclusions first, and then seek corroboration. Which is why you hear such advice. What if they’d found something, however innocent, that didn’t look good in the car? Of course, it shouldn’t be admissible, but it definitely could have sent me down a bad path.
And of course, they never sat me with a sketch artist, I was never asked to testify- I sincerely doubt they made much effort to find two armed robbers, and this in a relatively quiet suburban town. Why should they- they were sure they already knew who did it.
In the US, you can just simply ask the police if you are being detained and what for. That would probably lead you to your answer pretty quickly. You cannot stop police from suspecting you of something, so why try? What you’d want to know is whether or not you are being treated with suspicion, and more specifically, whether it is their intent to ask you potentially incriminating questions.
You can always tell the police that you’ll gladly submit to questioning once you get legal representation. It’s when you clam up and don’t offer to cooperate at all that police really get suspicious. And chances are, they’ll eventually find out what they need to know.
And I’m happy to relate what I saw, but I’ll do that with input from counsel, since the police are automatically in an adversarial relationship with everyone. Need a witness? I’m right here. And I’ll answer each question you have after I’ve discussed the question with my lawyer. What’s the problem?
Police have statistics and heuristics that they go by. If your kids are abducted, their first suspicion will be that it’s an inside job : like the other spouse or grandparents etc etc. I am not a lawyer, but it is probably in your, and your kids best interest, to take a lawyer on your side early on. It will help keep the cops from just pursuing you and your wife as suspects, and make them look for other potential kidnappers.
They should report the rape and in my opinion also retain a lawyer from the get go. Doing this keeps the cop straight and makes sure that regardless of skin color, the rape kit gets processed correctly, the rape victim gets the correct questions asked, and the cops don’t victim shame… Many times the victim may have used drugs either voluntarily or under duress, the victim maybe an illegal immigrant, etc etc - the lawyer will protect the victim from the police
In this specific instance, I don’t see why a lawyer can’t be consulted or present before you talk to the police. The main point of focus should be getting the victim to medical care and that has nothing to do with your testimony.
What if the shooter was part of a gang ? Your lawyer can get you and your family witness protection!!
What exactly do you mean by “early on” ? I actually know a number of criminal defense attorneys but I wouldn’t be sure I could reach one of them in minutes - and I’m certainly not going to wait for even five minutes to call the police to report that my car was stolen , the kid was in it, the details about the car and license plate and which direction the thief was traveling on what street. Maybe waiting 30 minutes to an hour till an attorney gets there keeps me from saying anything that causes the police to look at me as a suspect * - but it certainly delays searching for the car and the kid.
or maybe the delay makes me a suspect when I wouldn’t have been otherwise
I’d imagine, seeing as they are the victim of a terrible crime and all, you might start by encouraging and assisting them in getting medical attention. And perhaps the question of what else is to be done or who to call apart from that could be in consultation with them (the victim)?
The discussion isn’t really about who makes the decision - of course the victim is the person who ultimately decides whether to report the crime to the police or not. I suppose the question in that particular example is how you advise the victim - do you tell them not to report the crime unless they can afford a lawyer? If nearly everyone decided to do that the reported crime rate and police workload would probably drop drastically - although the real crime rate would almost certainly rise.
I felt it was important to highlight the agency of the survivors of sexual assault. Setting aside the problematic trope of “what if your wife/daughter/other female who is important to you…” I think it’s a poor example to use for when you might absolutely, 100%, without a doubt call the police. Because the survivor in that situation is likely the one who is going to have to bear the brunt of police questioning. And as @am77494noted upthread, the police may not always be super-enlightened/thoughtful or have the survivor’s best interests in mind during such an ordeal.
So… if I’d learned someone had suffered a sexual assault, barring an ongoing criminal act still in progress, this is yet another example when calling the police would not be my first reflexive action. Here, if not a lawyer, then at least some form of victim’s advocate might actually be a preferred first point of contact after or in concert with medical attention.
This is the point I was trying to make – there’s a cost/benefit analysis involved in talking to the police. If someone’s in harm’s way or a dangerous criminal is on the loose, the benefit of talking to the police to report the incident outweighs the minimal risk. If there’s no immediate danger to anyone, the benefits of protecting myself generally outweighs the cost of the short delay involved in consulting with an attorney.
An important thing that people have to keep in mind is that you can stop talking to the police any time you want to – having made a statement does not obligate you to answer any further questions. Making one initial statement of facts regarding a crime in progress likely does not open you up to much risk. But a fundamental tool of interrogation is to get you to give your story multiple times, and to zero in on the inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies may indicate you’re lying, but it’s also a fact that human memory is not an unchanging photograph we can reference as needed. We can remember things differently at different times, and our minds can fill in details that didn’t actually happen.
My favorite part of the Duane video is the quiz he gives about the newspaper article asking how many victims were shot. Nearly the whole room thinks the answer is three, but they’re all wrong – the article never said that anyone was shot. It described the killings as a “gang-style slaying” but never said anything about a shooting or firearms. But nearly everyone’s mind made the intuitive jump and filled in that detail.
Must be nice to have enough money to hire a lawyer for all that. How much does that cost, by the way? I suspect most people I know just don’t have that much on hand.
It’s not something to be rejected out of hand. There are low-income legal aid and victims advocacy groups that may be able to assist. There could be more such resources available for survivors of sexual assault and other crimes if various levels of government had the will to find and legislate to such an end (restoration of victims, rather than exclusively on punishing offenders—who may not even be known or identifiable, much less to the extent needed to prove guilt in a courtroom). This could easily dovetail into a discussion about resourcing of police departments vs. alternative programs. But we need not do so here, given the topic at hand.
The point is, in the balancing act of whether or not one would be best served by calling the police, even as the victim of a crime, alternative sources of assistance, where available, may lend weight to the “maybe don’t call the police right away—or at least not first” side of the discussion. And with good reason.
If you’re ever in a situation where you can’t tell the difference, then you’re either a criminal or a snitch. You should keep your mouth shut in either case.
If you don’t say anything, you just might get arrested for obstruction of justice. (Which is another point that the “don’t talk to the police” absolutists are overlooking.)
Here’s the law for Colorado, along with commentary by a lawyer. He lists “Interference of an investigation” as an example of conduct that falls under that statute.
I’m sorry, but nothing in there leads me to believe that refusing to answer questions falls under that statute, or even meet the definition of “interference with an investigation.” Moreover, everything else I have read suggests that any such interpretation would be erroneous.
Indeed, a plain reading of the statute indicates silence by itself cannot be a violation as it requires, “using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle.”
There are a lot fewer of those than many seem to imagine. For example, most legal aid agencies funded through Legal Services Corporation focus on family law, housing, employment, and other areas of civil law; criminal defense is entirely outside their remit. Public defender agencies are normally limited to serving those who have already been arrested and charged and have been found eligible for a court-appointed attorney. The Kansas Bar Association offers “quick, low cost legal advice” through their Ask-A-Lawyer program; it’s $2/minute billed to your credit card. Yes, at $120/hour that is cheaper than most attorneys bill for a regular consultation, but it will add up quickly if you need to consult the attorney for much more than a yes/no answer to “should I talk to the cops?”.