Is it illegal to lie to a police officer?

[Thalion]

@Whack-a-Mole

Excellent! A police officer posting to this board!

Thanks, Whack-a-Mole. As a cop, I’m not used to being welcomed so nicely! Usually people say, “I didn’t do it!” then they try to avoid me.

[Bricker]

@David Simmons

Interesting. So if the police question you about going through a red light and you deny it and it is later proved in court that you did go through the light you can also be prosecuted and convicted for the denial?

Theoretically, yes.

But there are enough practical problems with such a prosecution that I don’t think you need to stay up nights worrying. Not every state disallows the exculpatory no, and your honest belief that the light wasn’t red isn’t sufficient to save you from conviction for running it, but it would save you from the second conviction we’re discussing.

But if the state could prove you knew you were lying, then yes, I suppose theoretically your denial could be prosecuted.

[rbroome]

@Thalion

Thanks, Whack-a-Mole. As a cop, I’m not used to being welcomed so nicely! Usually people say, “I didn’t do it!” then they try to avoid me.

allow me to extend my welcome as well!
Your experience and knowledge will be most welcome here.
Thanks

[rbroome]

@Bricker

Theoretically, yes.

But there are enough practical problems with such a prosecution that I don’t think you need to stay up nights worrying. Not every state disallows the exculpatory no, and your honest belief that the light wasn’t red isn’t sufficient to save you from conviction for running it, but it would save you from the second conviction we’re discussing.

But if the state could prove you knew you were lying, then yes, I suppose theoretically your denial could be prosecuted.

I am going to bump my earlier comment/plea and see if someone can help me with my concern.
Assume that you are being questioned by a federal officer (lets avoid state law issue here to keep it simple) and you are not a suspect in the investigation. The officer is just collecting background information on some investigation. If you tell that officer something that turns out to be provably false, even if you truly believe it to be true, aren’t you guilty of a felony? I assume most prosecutors would not pursue such a charge, but it seems like a big risk for a citizen to take.

Thanks

[Gfactor]

@rbroome

If you tell that officer something that turns out to be provably false, even if you truly believe it to be true, aren’t you guilty of a felony?

It isn’t a strict liability crime. It says you have to make the false statement knowingly and wilfully. One court has described the mens rea required for this crime this way:

The natural reading of §§ 2(b) and 1001 is this: the government may show mens rea simply by proof (1) that the defendant knew that the statements to be made were false (the mens rea for the underlying offense-§ 1001) [(2) the defendant made the statement intentionally]

Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw

In short, no.

[Bricker]

@Thalion

I would normally never disagree with Bricker on a question of law, but this is not my understanding of the current state of Miranda rulings. Miranda is triggered by Custodial Interrogation, and the courts have repeatedly defined the Custody part as being not simply a restriction of liberty but “the functional equivalent of arrest”.

Here is a quote from a recent Washington State ruling (and Washington follows the Federal Court rulings on Fifth Amendment law, unlike Fourth Amendment rulings): "The question is not whether a reasonable person would believe that he was free to leave but rather whether he would believe that he was in " ‘police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.’ "
State v. Posenjak, ___ Wn. App. ___, 111 P.3d 1206 (Div. III, 2005)

That’s actually one of several statements the court made in Posenjak.

In order to trigger Miranda protections, a ‘suspect must be in
custody or ‘otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant
way.’’ State v. Mahoney, 80 Wn. App. 495, 496, 909 P.2d 949 (1996). Being
deprived of freedom of action depends upon whether the ‘‘suspect reasonably
supposed his freedom of action was curtailed.’’ State v. Richmond, 65 Wn.
App. 541, 544, 828 P.2d 1180 (1992) (quoting State v. Short, 113 Wn.2d 35,
41, 775 P.2d 458 (1989)). The question is not whether a reasonable person
would believe that he was free to leave but rather whether he would believe
that he was in ‘‘police custody of the degree associated with formal
arrest.’’ State v. Ferguson, 76 Wn. App. 560, 566, 886 P.2d 1164 (1995)
(quoting 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure sec. 6.6,
at 105 (Supp. 1991)).

A look at how the custody requirement has unfolded will be instructive.

After Miranda, the Court first addressed the custody issue in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492 (1977). A police officer invited the suspect to meet him at the police station to discuss a burglary. The officer told him he was a suspect but that he was not under arrest. After making inculpatory statement, the suspect was permitted to leave. The statements were admissible because there was “no indication that the questioning took place in a context where [the suspect’s] freedom to depart was restricted in any way.”

In California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121 (1983), the California Supreme Court had concluded that Beheler’s admissions of guilt should be suppressed, distinguishing Mathiason in a totality-of-the-circumstances test. (Beheler had been drinking, was a parolee, and was emotionally fragile during the questioning). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled that his admissions did not contravene Miranda. It is this case that uses the phrase “a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

Later cases shape that standard more into the “what a reasonable person believes” test. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (1984), an officer interrogated a driver during a traffic stop. Although the officer had already decided to arrest the driver, he did not do so until after the driver made admissions concerning the use of alcohol and marijuana. Because the officer had not revealed his intent to arrest the driver, the questioning was found to be non-custodial. “The only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.”

Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99 (1995), lays out a succinct and comprehensive custody test: “Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

Ultimately, we’re not saying different things: the key inquiry to whether or not “custody” for Miranda purposes has been established is if there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest, and the key element to establish that second fact is whether a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.

[Aangelica]

rbroome, you have to knowingly lie for criminal liability to attach. So if you give information to the police that you believe to be true at the time you give it, you have committed no crime.

I’m more interested in what the case would be if you chose not to answer an officer of the law making inquiries at all. I don’t recall it coming up in Crim Law class.

Provided you are only being questioned for background information, would criminal liability attach if you simply didn’t answer the officer. The First Amendment right covers not speaking as well. I assume, but am in no way certain, that you cannot be prosecuted for refusing to speak to an officer. Bricker?

I assume it would make the police officers suspicious as hell, though.

[Thalion]

@Bricker

Ultimately, we’re not saying different things: the key inquiry to whether or not “custody” for Miranda purposes has been established is if there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest, and the key element to establish that second fact is whether a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.

Yup, I’ll agree with that! I’ve always been very careful with Miranda and will give the warnings in more circumstances than many of my collegues (on the other hand, I’ve had to train new officers to NOT give them every time they talk to someone). I’ve even had a superior court judge compliment me on the efforts I took to protect the rights of suspects.

[Thalion]

@Aangelica

Provided you are only being questioned for background information, would criminal liability attach if you simply didn’t answer the officer.

As a rule, no, but it depends on the circumstances and local laws. In some cases, you might be prosecuted for Obstructing, and some states have laws that require you to identify yourself to Law Enforcement when asked.

[Bricker]

@Aangelica

rbroome, you have to knowingly lie for criminal liability to attach. So if you give information to the police that you believe to be true at the time you give it, you have committed no crime.

I’m more interested in what the case would be if you chose not to answer an officer of the law making inquiries at all. I don’t recall it coming up in Crim Law class.

Provided you are only being questioned for background information, would criminal liability attach if you simply didn’t answer the officer. The First Amendment right covers not speaking as well. I assume, but am in no way certain, that you cannot be prosecuted for refusing to speak to an officer. Bricker?

I assume it would make the police officers suspicious as hell, though.

Apart from some states’ laws requiring you to identify yourself to a police officer, there is no rule requiring you to answer specific questions. I’m not sure I’d characterize it as a First Amendment right, but you certainly cannot be compelled to answer a police officer’s questions.

So, no - you can’t be prosecuted for NOT speaking to an officer, except possibly for failing to identify yourself. You can be prosecuted for failing to testify or assert a valid privilege, but that’s in the context of a judicial proceeding, not a police interrogation.

Of course, this is not intended as legal advice about any specific situation. I am not your lawyer; you are not my client. For legal advice about your specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.

[Scott_Plaid]

I see my post here, number 5 , does not say the same thing as Rick’s post number 42. However, while they definitely say different things, they both come to the same conclusion. Close enough for government work, as they say. ::Sigh.::

[Aangelica]

I was just curious Bricker. I am a lawyer, but I regarded Criminal Law as an evil atrocity I had to struggle through as part of my calling to graduate and pass the bar. Therefore, it occurred to me to be curious and I couldn’t ID a cite quickly and thought you might know.

Thanks muchly!

[Bricker]

@Aangelica

I was just curious Bricker. I am a lawyer, but I regarded Criminal Law as an evil atrocity I had to struggle through as part of my calling to graduate and pass the bar. Therefore, it occurred to me to be curious and I couldn’t ID a cite quickly and thought you might know.

Pretty much how I regarded Property.

[vetbridge]

@Scott Plaid

Close enough for government work, as they say. ::Sigh.::

Bolding mine. Consider if you will, that they may be FOS.

[Northern_Piper]

@Mr. Slant

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled a few months ago that the police are not required to give the right-to-counsel warning under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they’ve pulled a driver over on suspicion of impaired driving. The officer can ask routine questions about whether the motorist has been driving and can ask the motorist to perform field sobriety tests. The counsel warning is only needed if the officer determines that there are sufficient grounds to demand a breath sample for analysis and takes the motorist to the detachment. See: R. v. Orbankski; R. v. Elias

[DrDeth]

@rbroome

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.

“makes any materially false… statement shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

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.

Well,it also will take a Judge and a Jury to decide of you’re guilty of a felony.

However, the statement must be “willful and knowing” and “material”. Generally, “lunch” isn’t “material” and they woudl have to prove that you “KNEW” Tuesday was the wrong day and “willfully” told a lie about it.

Once you are read your rights- you say “I want to speak to my attorney”.
On to the next subject- when are you being “detained’. Simple- ask “Am I free to go?”. If the answer is anything but an affirmative, then you are being detained, and (in a way) under 'arrest”.

[Bricker]

@DrDeth

On to the next subject- when are you being “detained’. Simple- ask “Am I free to go?”. If the answer is anything but an affirmative, then you are being detained, and (in a way) under 'arrest”.

This should be printed on wallet-sized cards, laminated, and distributed to all my former clients.

I respect the police and the job they do enormously, but there have been plenty of instances in which the cop on the stand piously claims it was a consensual enounter and the guy was free to leave any time, knowing all the while that he wouldn’t have let him take three steps AND knowing the guy knew this.

The advice above is the best way to extricate yourself: just ask if you’re free to go. That puts the cop in the position of deciding, right then, if he’s got enough to detain you for at least a Terry stop.

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

This should be printed on wallet-sized cards, laminated, and distributed to all my former clients.
The advice above is the best way to extricate yourself: just ask if you’re free to go. That puts the cop in the position of deciding, right then, if he’s got enough to detain you for at least a Terry stop.

Thank you Bricker- from such an expert as you, this is high praise indeed!

I used it only once. It confounded the Officer a bit- he hemmed and hawed, “Well, I just need to ask you a few questions” “So, then- I am* not *free to go?”, but then said I was free to go, then I left.

[groman]

The bottom line is that you keep your mouth entirely shut and not answer any question other “What is your name?” the biggest thing that they can probably put you away for is contempt of the court when you’re put on the stand. It would be difficult if not impossible to prove onbstruction of justice if you just play mute.

[rbroome]

@DrDeth

Well,it also will take a Judge and a Jury to decide of you’re guilty of a felony.

However, the statement must be “willful and knowing” and “material”. Generally, “lunch” isn’t “material” and they woudl have to prove that you “KNEW” Tuesday was the wrong day and “willfully” told a lie about it.

Once you are read your rights- you say “I want to speak to my attorney”.
On to the next subject- when are you being “detained’. Simple- ask “Am I free to go?”. If the answer is anything but an affirmative, then you are being detained, and (in a way) under 'arrest”.

THANKS EVERYONE!
I feel much better. I figured the situation had to be as you describe, but that isn’t how I read the law. Obviously I am not a lawyer.

I read it as: the individual “knowingly makes a false statement” = guilty. But I interpret that as the individual knowingly makes a statement that turns out to be false, not that the individual makes a statement knowing it to be false. Obviously the difference is crucial. I certainly knowingly made a statement “I had lunch on Thursday” (which I posit to be factually false even though I don’t know it at the time) which meets the letter of the law as I read it. It is nice to know that they have to prove that I knew it to be false at the time. As far as material-if what I tell the officer throws him off the trail for two days it certainly seems like it is a material fact to the case even if it has nothing to do with the crime. But IANAL (whew! I left that to my brother. I confess I looked down on him for that-until I found out what he had been doing all these years taking care of our father. Boy it sure is NICE to be so wrong. Some lawyers, at least ones like my brother, have good bones in their body to spare.)

So again thanks. I couldn’t have not talked to police about something I saw or knew, but I would have worried a lot. OTOH if I am a suspect or being detained-it is time to call a lawyer.