I’ve been arguing with my friends about this. If a cop pulls you over and asks you a question where the truthfull answer would incriminate oneself, could you get in extra trouble for the simple act of lying? My friend insists that since you aren’t under oath, there’s no crime.
I’m not so sure about this. Law enforcement officers that are on duty and are asking you questions are probably investigating a crime. Leading them in the wrong direction is obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
I disagree with you. However, save for the fact that a cop is a human being, not some magical lie detector, I have no cite, or means to back up my statement.
Lying to the police is a crime and an arrestable offense. I assume (but am not certain) that lying to the police (or a judge or FBI agent, etc.) is considered an obstruction of justice.
You do however have the right to keep your mouth shut.
It can be. Some jurisdictions have adopted what’s called the “exculpatory no” doctrine, which says that you can’t be prosecuted for simple denials of guilt made to law enforcement. That used to be the rule in some federal circuits regarding false statements made to federal agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, but the Supreme Court but the kibosh on the federal exculpatory no doctrine in Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), which involved a Union official telling federal agents “no” when asked if he’d ever improperly received cash or gifts.
So on a federal level your freind would definitely be incorrect, but he might be right on a state level if your state recognizes the “exculpatory no” doctrine.
I bow before your experience, Whack-a-Mole. By searching harder, I seem to have found that that no one has been persecuted for it, and it happens all the time, but it is a crime, nonetheless.
If you don’t want to give the cops a truthful answer, shut up.
Here’s a script:
“My name is Mr. Robert E. Slant. My address is 999 Any Lane, which is in THE CITY, in THE STATE. I don’t have anything else to say without my lawyer present.”
Assuming you replace the name and address above with your own, that’s all you ever have to say to any cop.
The only exceptions might be if they want you to do a sobriety test, where refusing isn’t criminal, but may result in loss of driving privileges.
IANAL, and if you’ve got legal problems I suggest you consult with an attorney. My answer is of course only applicable to persons in the USA. If you’re in Canada, the UK or anywhere else then I haven’t the faintest idea what you should do when asked questions by the local constabulary.
Excuse my ignorance, but does my right to be silent trump the cop’s pursuit of “justice”…
e.g.,
Cop: where’s your brother, who’s wanted for murder?
Me: I don’t have anything to say without an attorney present…
Can I get away with this?
Well…there are lies and then there are LIES.
If the police ask you, “Did you see the no turn on red sign?” and you say “No” when in fact you did isn’t worth getting in a fuss over (not to mention I do not know how the police could prove you did see it and were lying anyway).
Saying to the police, “I didn’t shoot at Pravnik…it was Scott Plaid who shot at him” when in fact I know full well you did no such thing is another matter entirely.
Perhaps not the best of examples but hopefully you see what I am on about here. I would suppose in cases where they catch you in a lie and it actually matters there are other laws to get you (such as making false accusation) but I really do not know the ins-and-outs of it.
Still seems best to not lie and just keep your mouth shut.
Thanks! I have been trying to relocate that law. It wasn’t lost, I was lost in the masses of verbage.
As I read it, ANY statement, no matter how innocent, that turns out to be false, is a felony if the prosecutor decides that the information misled the investigator. “materially false statement”.
How can anyone talk to a federal officer about anything? If you say you had lunch on Tuesday and three years later a prosecutor investigates and can show (lets say a credit card charge or testimony from a witness) that it was really Thursday-boom off to the pen you go. All it would take then was some agent to claim that his time was wasted investigating a false lead.
I understand the idea behind the law, making it a crime to lie to cover up a crime. But that isn’t what the law says. and “makes any materially false… statement shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
I am a law abiding citizen who wants to help the friendly police officer, but I can’t afford to put my family in that kind of jeapordy.
What would you do if questioned by a federal officer? Lets assume you are confident that you are not a suspect. The officer is just gathering information about a crime you may have witnessed or have information about.
Really going to need a lawyer for this one (IANAL).
I too thought you had a right to remain silent.
Seems I may be wrong per the following…
Looking up the case itself referenced in the above article ( Chave v. Martinez <—PDF ) it seems the US Supreme Court overturned the lower courts rulings that Martinez’s rights had been violated when subjected to coercive questioning (Martinez had been shot five times and was interrogated by police in the ambulance and at the hospital over the course of 45 minutes).
Again…really need an attorney to tell us what this all means but it is interesting (and a little scary in my view).
That should be Chavez v. Martinez
Sigh.
First people are taken off the streets and held indefinitely without charge or access to the courts. Including citizens.
Coercive questioning is condoned and encouraged.
detainees have no right (according to the courts, but it doesn’t seem like that matters much) to remain silent.
you know, this goes way past making me feel unsafe and disappointed in my country.
Isn’t part of what Martha Stewart got in trouble for due to the fact that she apparently lied to federal investigators? I seem to recall it was perjury or obstruction or something like that.
Answer like this: Who? My brother Jerry?[Your brother’s name is Chuck]
Cop: No, your brother Charles.
You: Where was he suppose to be?
Cop: We are looking for your brother.
You: Chuck?
Cop: Yes.
You was he supposed to have done?
etc. 
;j
She was found guilty of conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice. What I do not know is in what context she made the statements she was found guilty of. If you are before a Grand Jury you are under oath and lying there is certainly not ok. Lying to investigators in a formal (e.g. office setting with a court reporter and attorneys present) setting? Lying to investigators when they show up at your door and ask a few questions? I have no idea where or how she made the statements that got her in trouble were done.
Bottom line though is it seems lying to law enforcement is technically illegal in any setting so maybe where she said what she said is irrelevant.
Wouldn’t it make a difference whether or not you were under arrest? (Or have I seen too many episodes of Law & Order?)
The important thing about the Martinez case is that it brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which governs the law for civil suits for deprivation of civilr rights. It’s basically suing for monetary damages when one’s civil rights are violated under color of state law. For example, Rodney King filed a 1983 action against the LAPD for violating his civil rights by beating the holy hell out of him. The Martinez case (Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)) held that when police obtain a coercive confession that isn’t used at trial, there is no deprivation of civil rights that you can sue for under § 1983. It’s a civil case and isn’t really applicable to criminal proceedings, even though it arose out of one.
In theory being under arrest means you get your Miranda rights read to you but if you read my link above on that you will see Miranada is no longer what it once was it seems.
Still, if you are under arrest you have a right to an attorney. As I understood it if you are placed under arrest and demand an attorney all questioning must stop till the attorney arrives. If you do not request one they can ask you whatever they want. If you are not under arrest you do not have a right to an attorney. You could have an attorney at questioning before being arrested but the state will not give you one till after you have been formally charged.
Again…IANAL but that is what I recall my dad telling me (and he is an attorney…still…take it with a grain of salt as he was not a criminal attorney).
I think you mean 1993 on Rodney King.
Thanks Pravnik. Still, the Findlaw article I linked to above seemed to think this case had farther reaching consequences to civil liberties as regarded Miranda than what you are suggesting. The article I linked to was written before the decision but it still seemed to scare the author. Is there nothing more here than a civil suit?