I don’t want to completely derail my thread over in FQ, so I’ll ask here since it could foster a debate.
Police can lie to you but how far can this go? Suppose I’ve been stopped and a policeman asks if he can search my car. Many of us know that you can say no. But what if you don’t know that and the policeman says “You have to let me search your car.” So you say, “OK, you can search it.” Would that be a legal search?
Or more absurdly, suppose you ask if you are free to go and the policeman says yes but then arrests you for resisting arrest because he lied when he said you were free to go.
How far can a lying policeman go and get away with it?
They do that all off the time along with
“If you don’t answer my questions, that’s obstruction.”
“If you don’t identify yourself, that’s obstruction.” (assume not a stop-and-ID state)
They can tell you that a witness has identified you, although there is no witness.
That I believe is entrapment because relying on the officer’s word led you to commit an illegal act you would not have committed otherwise.
But remember, these are people that will suddenly grab you, throw you to the ground and scream at you just so they can add “resisting arrest” to the charges.
So why bother with telling them they’re free to go? Arrest them and just say it happened. If the policeman is wearing a camera or there are witnesses the ‘resisting arrest’ charge won’t stick.
Is the OP asking how far this can go and remain 100% legal in a pre-trump world, how far this can go and remain 100% legal in a trumply world, or what is really the worst case that has happened out in the real world pre-trump, or what is really the worst case that’s expected to happen in the future out in the real world with trump?
Those are four very different questions with very different answers. Until we know what the OP is really asking, we don’t really have much ability to answer. Or said better, unless folks give the question they’re answering along with their answer to their chosen question, the collective result of the thread will be all over the place with no consensus.
My understanding is that police aren’t allowed to lie about giving you leniency if you confess. Only the prosecutor can do that. But I have no idea how well that plays out in reality.
In reality, cops will do whatever they can get away with. If they can lie when they’re not supposed to, and they think they can get away with it, they will. Police lying under oath in court is illegal but it happens all the time.
But ‘in theory’ I believe police cannot lie about the following:
Lying in court under oath
Lying about offering you leniency if you confess
Presenting false evidence to a suspect*
Claiming that your civil rights are not applicable (you do not have the right to an attorney, right to remain silent, etc)
*While police cannot, to my knowledge, give false evidence to a suspect they can pretend they have false evidence. Meaning a police officer can say ‘we found your fingerprints at the crime scene’ as a lie. What they can’t do is have a false document from forensics printed up showing proof of your fingerprints at the crime scene. I think thats how it works, I’m not entirely sure. Its kind of weird.
I just get the impression they can lie about having evidence that doesn’t exist, but they can’t fabricate evidence and show it to you as ‘proof’ that they have evidence.
FWIW, the biggest lie police tell is pretending they have more evidence than they really do. I think I read the majority of the time the police like to a suspect, its to pretend they have more evidence than they really have in order to elicit a confession.
If you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to determine whether or not the police are lying to you, the safest assumption is that everything they are saying to you is a lie. There are rules, as discussed above, but unless you’re a legal expert you can’t be confident you understand the nuances of the rules, and there’s no guarantee the police are following them anyway. All you need to know is that the police cannot be trusted to be honest if they are treating you as a suspicious person.
They can imply “Things will go easier on you.” or “I can help you.” if they confess. Are you talking about a specific deal like, “If you confess, you’ll get 1 year prison with 3 years probation.” if that’s not a deal the prosecutor has approved?
But it was legal to put a colander on a guys head as a “lie detector” and have a partner run a copier that said “Lying” every time the suspect answered a question.
That is due to incorrect use of the Reid Technique. If used correctly, the interrogator has the evidence they claim like video.
Am I free to leave?
I invoke my right to remain silent.
I invoke my right to an attorney.
Repeat as needed.
The story was published several times about an alleged incident in PA. Radnor Township was identified but has denied the story several times. I did read about this when it was first reported no later than the '80s. Having lived in the next township over and worked in Radnor I noted it with interest but no real confirmation ever turned up.