As several people have pointed out already, if you are suspected of a crime you should get a lawyer. 98.35% of the people I have interacted with were not suspects of anything and did not need a lawyer. The nature of the business is you speak with a lot more victims than suspects.
It’s possible he works in a bad place. It’s possibke there have been departments with a toxic culture. It’s also possible his coworkers could give you an earful about what he is really like at work that would surprise you.
What percentage of people know they are suspected of a crime before you say anything to each other?
All I know is that he is unhappy with his coworkers willingness to lie in order to get arrests/convictions. When ordered to change reports in order to cover others’ lies, he does so grudgingly. I think the department is textbook “bad”.
What I really wonder about is how typical that police department is, nationally.
If you don’t know what it’s about and whether you are suspect material, especially after the first question or two, then it’s probably a good idea to play it safe.
This topic reminds me of Susan Nelles, a nurse in Toronto back in the 80’s. When the police went through the staff asking about an unusual number of baby deaths, they arrested her because instead of breaking down and sobbing about the poor babies like the (male) police expected she should when questioned, she asked if she should get a lawyer. After a few years, an extremely high profile trial where her defense asked why they hadn’t considered another nurse who made a much better suspect, she was acquitted. A decade or ore later, new scientific tests suggested that the babies had not been administered lethal doses of digoxin, it was a false positive as a result of the type of test… the deaths were natural not murder.
I have been on trial for a serious felony, and it is always best to keep your mouth shut, and speak to your attorney only. Once you speak, and it becomes official record, it is written in stone. And once you begin to talk, you are opening a Pandors Box, which is not easy to shut.
There is a reason that the Founders put it in the Constitution, that "“[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” It is there for the defendants own good.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/u-s-constitution-fifth-amendment.html
PS: I was acquitted of the felony charge.
I was just coming to post about Susan Nelles, the nurse md2000 mentioned.
It’s true that in her case, “lawyering up” made her the prime suspect in the eyes of the police, as Tom Tildrum suggests.
However, after her acquittal and the successful civil action she brought, where the damages were aggravated because the police targetted her for exercising her constitutional right, I think the police have got the message that they are not allowed to target someone because they insist on speaking to a lawyer.
I held off on answering this question from the Canadian perspective because the OP asked to hear from USians first, but now that a day’s gone by, I thought I’d jump in.
I’m not aware of any case quite like your example, Czarcasm, but the Supreme Court of Canada has held that police cannot try to dissuade someone from speaking to a lawyer. As agents of the state, they have to respect the individual’s exercise of their constitutional rights and must hold off on questioning as soon as the individual asserts their right to speak to a lawyer.
Or these claims he makes are complete bullshit.
One of my fellow officers is like that. According to him everyone else on the department is a liar, and incompetent. I’m certain that the friends and neighbors he has outside of work (nobody on the department can stand him) believes our department is corrupt and he alone has to cover for our lies and fuck ups simply because that’s what he told them. In reality he is a malcontent. He is a very unhappy soul and nothing will ever change that no matter who does that. And the claims he makes about lies, misconduct, cover ups, and incompetencies are completely false, or at best huge exaggerations of minor screw ups.
Whether your guy is actually on the level or not I don’t know. But I’m not taking your word for his. Sorry.
This is a question on a USA technicality.
Don’t people in the US already have the right to remain silent, before anyone tells them so?
Why, in the example of a cautious police interaction, was the person articulating his refusal to answer? Why not remain silent, for real?
Is this a jurisdictional thing? Loach mentions that his department prohibits this, but I don’t know of a constitutional limit here. Given police can lie, I would figure offering fake deals would also be on the table. Is that not right?
It’s because the police don’t decide if a case will be prosecuted or what sentence will be pursued. They can charge, but the prosecutors decide what happens next.
Prosecutors are separate and independent from the police, not the lawyers for the police. The police can’t instruct prosecutors what to do with a charge.
I understand that. I’m saying, the police can lie to you, why wouldn’t they also be able to lie about making a deal.
You can say nothing at all, but… I believe this was covered in a previous thread a while ago… to make the police stop interrogating you without a lawyer, you have to reasonably clearly ask for one. Once you do, the police cannot ask you questions. But of course, if you say anything without being asked it’s fair game. As others have mentioned this only applies if you have been arrested.
The cop on the street does not need to give you a chance to find a lawyer first, but then, you do not have to answer his questions or wait around. If he does detain you, then - there’s a bunch of technicalities here, but if you are detained then you are under arrest and Miranda applies. IIRC there was a recent court case about when a traffic stop turns into detaining and the need for probable cause arises, etc. etc. The police cannot unreasonably stall a simple traffic ticket, for example, to get the sniffer dogs on site.
Loach and others make the point that a police department that does not want to have it’s cases tossed regularly for skirting the limits, will have guidelines that are perhaps more strict than recent court cases. Even if someone asks “do I need a lawyer?” then take that as explicitly asking for a lawyer and there will never be an appeal based on whether that was an explicit lawyer request. Record all interactions and nobody will be able to claim something that did not happen.
I have trouble imagining a serious case where a deal did not involve a lawyer. After all, it goes to trial where the defendant pleads guilty and admits what he did - and if the lawyer present at that time lets a crappy deal go through without argument, then perhaps the defendant has a case for appealing for inadequate representation. And if the deal truly was inadequate, then the prosecutor, who is a knowledgeable (allegedly) lawyer, would be unethically pulling a fast one on a client who did not grasp the finer points of law. Also grounds for appeal, I presume.
There was a case in Toronto decades ago; a man was killed in a subway station, with not much evidence to go on. The police settled on the wife and her boyfriend and arrested them. During interrogation, they showed the boyfriend a confession signed by the wife saying that the boyfriend had arranged the whole thing, and suggested he was going to take the rap unless he ratted her out too. He laughed in their collective faces; when they let the two go for lack of evidence, he sued them for forgery (the wife’s signature) since the crown would not prosecute the police. It went to the Canadian supreme court which ruled that the police can be deceptive in interrogating.
There have also been a number of “Mister Big Sting” cases in Canada; the police spend an inordinate amount of money to try to weasel a confession out of a suspect. Usually, he’s a low life prime suspect - they have an undercover agent befriend him, slowly draw him into what is believed to be a criminal organization, give him money and other gifts, involve him in fake crimes (most recently, asked a guy to help clean up a large amount of blood from a “murder scene”) then tell him to move up in the organization, prove his street cred by describing a crime he was involved in to “the boss”. In this last case, at this point the guy laughed in their faces and told them they were cops.
“Mister Big” is explicitly not allowed in most other countries. It’s fairly obvious that the denouement could appear sufficiently intimidating or enticing to the mark that he could simply lie or make things up so a confession is not credible. IIRC there was also a case in British Columbia where the mark thought he was really in danger from a criminal organization and shot one of the undercover policemen. Plus there was a case in Ontario several years ago where a little girl disappeared, and the police were in the process organizing this sting to get a confession from the mother, when the real suspects were found. The mother had no involvement.
I’m assuming you are talking about the US, but it is probably worth a data point to note that the British caution is now, "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” Source.
That seems to indicate that being silent may not be a good idea, although I guess saying absolutely nothing until your lawyer arrives does not negate your rights.
I’ve not seen a case where that issue has come up, but my off-the-cuff reaction is that in Canada, if a police officer tried to make a deal like that, and the Crown didn’t agree with it, it would play out like this:
-
A plea deal is recognised in Canada as a contract. If the police offered a deal, the accused accepted it and then the Crown refused to implement it, the accused could sue the police officer and possibly the police service for breach of contract in civil court. Damages could potentially result.
-
In the criminal proceedings, even though the police did not have authority to offer the deal, the Court might rule that it would be an abuse of process not to implement it and require the Crown to proceed on the terms of the deal. Alternatively, if the case strikes the Court as egregious misuse of authority by the police, there could even be a stay of proceedings.
-
If step 2 occurs, there would likely be considerable internal discussions between the Crown office and the police service about the respective roles of the police and the Crown.
-
Having steps 1, 2, and 3 laid at your feet is not a good career move for a police officer.
As I said, I’m just spit-balling. I don’t know if this sort of situation has ever come up.
Seems even if you’re the head of the FBI, talking to the cops can get you in trouble…
As I understand it, it means for example if you suddenly say a few months after your arrest “I was watching the telly with me granny at the time” then the prosecution is entitled to say “you didn’t say so when arrested” the implication being you made it up after the fact. Whereas the prosecution in the USA is not allowed to say “he wouldn’t tell us where he was that night”. i.e. you silence cannot be used to imply you are hiding something, and the fact that your alibi showed up much later also cannot be brought up.
In order for a statement to be admissible, it must be ‘voluntary’. This is a separate question than whether it was preceded by a miranda warning, and the person waived their right to stay silent. The reason for the voluntary standard is to prevent police coercion; the obvious example being a beating, but the law has also included psychological coercion as inducing involuntary statements.
So, while the line is fuzzy (i.e. IIRC, in one famous case, the cops were talking amongst themselves about the desire to give the victim a ‘Christian burial’ when the suspect interjected with the location of the body; this was not deemed coercive conversation), police cannot blatantly lie with promises of leniency to obtain a confession.
I know that you qualified this with “a bunch of technicalities”, but a more accurate summation is that there are 3 types of police interactions:
-
Voluntary - you are free to leave at any time (even if you are not aware that you can do so). As such, your discussion with the cops is deemed a choice you are making, so your statements are not the product of an interrogation. Totally admissible.
-
Investigatory stop - I made this post to include this middle ground. The police can, in fact, detain you without actually arresting you. At this point, you are not free to leave, but that requires that the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. (This is often termed a Terry stop, because of the seminal case, Terry v. Ohio, which ruled that police are allowed this intermediate period of detention). The limitation is that the police can only detain you for a ‘reasonable amount of time’ and their investigation must be ‘reasonably related’ to their suspicions.
Point being, you may be taken into handcuffs, or put in the back of a patrol car, without actually being arrested. The cops do have a legal right to ask you to identify yourself and can also ask questions pertinent to their safety (i.e. “do you have a gun”, “is their anybody else inside the house?”), and they don’t first have to mirandize you.
- Arrest - this requires probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and may require an arrest warrant. Obviously, at the point of arrest you are going to be put into handcuffs and put into a police car. But, even then, the police don’t have to mirandize you unless they intend to interrogate you. If, as a suspect, you keep jabbering away (“I didn’t do anything. I was in the kitchen with my brother the whole time! There were other guys who did the deed! I saw one run away.”), police don’t have to stop you from making statements that can be used later at trial.