I’ve noticed on many shows such as Law and Order that it’s pretty much never in the interest of anyone to talk to police without an attorney present, and even then the attorney advises the client frequently not to answer. Is this an accurate reflection of how things really work? Why does anyone talk to the police without an attorney - especially those 4 hour + interrogation marathons? I get wanting to cooperate, and not wanting to look guilty…but if things go on and on or if one really is guilty, then why talk?
They are not interrogations. Police conduct interviews, Q & A in which they try to get the subject to convict themselves with their own words.
Interrogation is a whole nasty level way above what police in democracies carry out.
Because they think they’re the good guys, and so are the cops. Unfortunately, when the cops say they’re just trying to help the interviewee, that is exactly the opposite of the truth, also known as lying. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” also means nothing you say can be used to help you.
Voluntary police interviews are not interrogations. But it is categorically wrong to say that “police in democracies don’t carry out interrogations.” In fact, everything you posted is wrong, because the word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does anyway.
[QUOTE=butterfiles]
I get wanting to cooperate, and not wanting to look guilty…but if things go on and on or if one really is guilty, then why talk?
[/QUOTE]
Most people talk because they have nothing to hide, or think they don’t. And they want to look like they have nothing to hide. Many people talk because they want to help prevent or solve crimes. As an average, law-abiding citizen it probably won’t do you any harm if you stop to answer a few questions on the street. Of course, it won’t do you any harm to refuse either.
Some people are not fully aware of their rights, e.g. the right to stop talking at any point, or their right to leave if they are not actually under arrest/detention.
Some people are afraid to assert their rights, or are afraid of having someone (in this case the interrogator) dislike them, or are afraid of looking guilty if they don’t cooperate.
Some people believe the interrogator’s claim that things will go better for them (the suspect) if they cooperate fully (or their vague threat that things will go badly for them if they don’t cooperate).
This and “entry level bad people” always figure they can talk their way out of it. “I’m smarter than the cops and I have too much to lose - I can get away with this”. It isn’t going to work that way.
Unless we’re talking about something at the level of a speeding ticket, you are not going to be able to come up with a good enough reason for your crime that the police will let you go. They don’t care what your reason was; they just want to know if you committed the crime.
But people who committed crimes are much more focused on why they committed the crime. And the police encourage this attitude by focusing on that aspect and getting people to talk about their reasons for what they did. But they will make sure that while you explain why you did it, you also explicitly admit you did it - and that’s all the police really wanted to hear.
Most people cave in high-pressure situations and are easily bullied, intimidated, and manipulated by the power differential. The person being questioned can be denied food, sleep, a toilet, etc. indefinitely at the whim of their armed questioners. Seeming cooperative is one of the few survival tactics at their disposal.
Police interview techniques are not random; they are taught. The class I had on the subject stressed getting inside a person’s personal space, even touching them if necessary to induce nervousness. Pretty much nothing the officer says or does during an interview is without purpose, and is designed to get you to reveal what you know or to incriminate yourself. As Ethilrist said, courts have determined that police may lie to you to get you to admit to things you wouldn’t ordinarily say, and that what you say can NOT be used to save your ass in court. You may think that you are clever enough to not be caught out, but you’d be wrong.
TV is one thing, but I’d love to know what the reality is. Do most suspects just babble on, trying to spin their way out of the case? Or is it, as I have heard, that in cases like murder, for example, that the cops don’t even arrest anyone until they have a case, and often don’t even interview/interrogate the suspect?
I know I watch too many police procedurals when I start rooting for the criminal, and find myself yelling at the TV “Shut UP! Get a lawyer!” In some of the weaker episodes, the cops don’t have a bit of evidence, and if the guilty parties would just SHUT UP they could get away with it.
Indefinitely? I’d like to see a cite for that. I would assume if you were in for questioning they could only keep you for so long.
One effed up anecdote I’ve heard cops try is to question minors without a guardian present. Normally if the person is under eighteen they need to have a parent, guardian or lawyer present. But I’m sure there are loopholes to this that police can exploit. Not sure if it’s true. But it would definitely suck to have your seventeen year old child railroaded because he never even knew they weren’t allowed to interview him alone.
Let’s look at three cases of being questioned as a suspect that could be admissible in court:
- You are innocent and talk but say absolutely nothing that contradicts any other evidence or eye witness. Think the prosecutor is bringing any of that up?
- You are innocent but something you says contradicts another piece of evidence. Maybe you were just vague or misspoke. Maybe it’s contradicted by an eyewitness who is wrong themselves. It still looks like a lie. Why would you lie if you weren’t guilty? You must be guilty!!!
- You are guilty. Anything you say is one more thing that someone can try to find evidence to impugn your statements.
1 doesn’t help you. 2 and 3 can hurt. Innocent or not looking like you lied is not good for your case.
Yep. I sat in on a trial a few years ago for a guy accused of killing his wife, during which they played some tapes of the interrogation.
In an earlier round of questioning, before the guy was officially a suspect and when the woman was just thought to be missing, he mentioned his wife had had an affair.
Anyway, during the interrogation they hammered away at that point, with the detectives saying stuff like, “I bet that really pissed you off, didn’t it, her sleeping around.” One of the detectives even went so far as to say, “Hey, I’ve been there, I know what it’s like, and when I found out what was happening,* I* wanted to kill someone.”
One thing that TV shows don’t portray is that most interviews do not lead to arrest. Most are witness interviews. Some do cause suspicion to shift to someone else. And many are just plain boring.
I know around here if there was any hint of any of that going on the interview would immediately get tossed in a suppression hearing.
Part of our Miranda form which comes directly from the Attorney General guidelines states that the subject agrees that no coercion or promises were made to get the statement. If there was any hint of coercion or promises for better treatment the interview will be tossed in a suppression hearing. And all suspect interviews must be video taped.
Since the entire interview must be handed over in discovery the defense is free to use anything in it to help his client.
This is kind of what I was thinking of. I mean, if I was a witness to something I wouldn’t necessarily hold out for a lawyer but guess it cannot really hurt to do so.
But if I was questioned at the precinct or for more than a few minutes or if I could think of any reason I might be suspect, I’m going for the lawyer present.
Some episodes of L&O Criminal Intent sparked my interest. This show portrays the kind of questioning I’m talking about. I’m not familiar with the difference between questioning and interrogation but used the word interrogation because it’s obviously aggressive in multiple ways. Plus it’s in an interrogation room.
Right, but it’s always shown on TV as the police saying they want to help him, and that’s not how it works… if they wanted to help him, they’d let him leave. Or they’d let him send for an attorney. More questions = not helping him.
Watch the show The First 48 on A&E sometime. It’s a reality show, but not a bullshit one. It’s essentially a documentary that follows the first two days of a murder investigation. I’m amazed how in literally 100% of the cases they get the ignorant low-life perps to hang themselves with their own testimony to the police when all they had to do was at any time say “I want a lawyer”. Not all of them would go free, but I bet more than half of them would, or at least wind up with lower sentences, if they lawyered up.
I always got the impression that police use lawyering up as a bargaining chip. They tell the person they can ask for a lawyer if they want to, but once they do any ‘deals’ are off the table. IOW it’s useful in getting them to talk especially if the person isn’t the actual suspect but an accomplice (before or after the fact) or a witness/relative etc. Suffice it to say, if you’re directly involved in any way, lawyer up. Immediately. It can only help you.
In Fifth Amendment jurisdprudence, [custodial] interrogation is a term of art. It does not (necessarily) imply aggression or even that the questioning takes place in an interrogation room. Basically, the criteria are whether (1) the suspect is in custody, and (2) whether it takes place in a “police-dominated environment.”
The “custody” requirement is essentially a test of whether the suspect is detained; either not free to leave, or has the objectively reasonable belief that he is not free to leave. The police-dominated environment requirement is a bit trickier, but suffice it to say that you can undergo custodial interrogation in your own home, if it’s just you and 10 LEOs.
+1000 on First 48. You get a really good idea of what things are truly like. When I did LE, I never worked anything but patrol.