As I recall that case dealt with a father and daughter who had been arguing or something(?) loudly. Someone called the cops. When they were asked to identify themselves, they both refused. The police were not sure a crime had even been committed, but they did have a report of a problem and these looked like the people reported. They arrested them for refusing to identify themselves.
IIRC the SC said that where there’s a legitimate concern that a crime may have happened, people who the police think might be involved have to tell the police who they are. I don’t think it comes down to proof - no “papers please” - but you do have to tell the police your name. Nothing else. It can’t be for a random encounter, the police have to have a reason to believe you are involved in something or saw it. It doesn’t have to be arrest-worthy probably cause.
I assume the logic is something along the lines of - if the police ever have to go back to revisit the situation, they at least know who the participants were.
In my state you do not have to identify yourself if you haven’t committed a crime and it is not obstructing an officer.
Does NY require one be Mirandized even while fighting just putting cuffs on? Because in most of the country you don’t have to. it’s one of the nitpicks I have about police shows/movies.
Except they are not the same. Reasonable Suspicion is a lesser standard that Probable Cause. I need RS to detain you but PC to actually place you under arrest.
What postpic200 was saying was, “That’s what most people believe, and they are wrong. Here are the correct definitions.” And then **postpic200 **goes on to provide the correct explanation in the sentences that follow.
The only situation where it would look, and merely “look” bad to refuse to speak before consulting a lawyer, would be in the case where the accused is of a sufficient level of celebrity, or fame, where doing so could influence a jury.
From the police perspective, it’s 100% to the police’s advantage that you talk without one, after making it clear you have the right (Hence why the police now always use the Miranda rights speech). The police can advise you of that right, and then basically use “trickery and chicanery” to make it seem like it would be easier for the accused to forgo the right of an attorney. It can get really complicated, but it is basically fair play for the police to sweet talk you into giving up self-incriminating information.
Is is misconduct for the police or DA’s office to do so? More like it is standard protocol.
But it is not allowed to even bring up the refusal to talk in court. And of course, a person does not have to take the stand if they are the defendant, and pretty much all the time defendants don’t. Almost anyone of any importance once arrested immediately gets a lawyer to show up. So the only reason a pool of jurors would know the person should “look bad” is if the police leaked that detail to the media. I would think that sort of detail would bring the proceedings pretty close to mistrial?
I’ve had cases where things were time-sensitive. We might have multiple people under arrest and be seeking to locate evidence or another suspect. The first one to sing gets consideration. You want a lawyer? Fine that’s your right but if someone else flips first…oh, well. It was rare but it did happen.
The first one to sing gets consideration? What if the “first one to sing” was the ringleader? Does she/he get off lighter because you got to arrest more people no matter where most of he responsibility for the crime actually lays?
When I was a prosecutor I had cases from time to time in which the “victim” just happened to be the first one to call the police, and the “defendant” was either the second or never called at all. Otherwise they both looked pretty equally guilty.
Well of course. The justice system isn’t about justice, it’s about getting a conviction for every crime. I recall reading several cases where the appeal against a capital murder execution involved an accomplice or getaway driver who was headed for execution based on the confession of the triggerman - who got life not death.
The point is, the prosecutor will often make a deal with the first one to flip, regardless of the ethics. In fact, that is one of the persuasion tactics the police use to get someone to talk, so they’d lose their key piece of testimony if they did not follow through.
(Brings up an interesting question - is a deal like that enforceable? I guess it depends what they are promised. I assume by the time a deal is offered, the prosecutor is involved.)
You’d be surprised at how many people just start talking after the Miranda warning. My father made a living out of it for over 40 years, as a LEO. If you get a lawyer (not a public defender) before you talk to the police, you generally don’t go to court. Furthermore, when a LEO is cross-examined, It is invariably mentioned. Any lawyer is going to check to see that the Miranda rights were given properly, because any evidence gleaned after that is open to argument as to admissibility. Usually the LEO will be explicitly asked if they recited the Miranda warning, and if the subject then willingly chose to talk.
Not in Colorado. Cops need reasonable cause to arrest you before you need to submit to any test - even a roadside sobriety test (if you are 21 or older) (IANAL)
From that same site, be very careful how far you take refusal though. If you are arrested for DUI in Colorado, then refusal to take the breath test (or blood test, which the site doesn’t mention) is considered the same as having come up intoxicated on the test.
No, but they will intimate that it is in order to get you to forego your rights. The idea is that, by foregoing a lawyer, you are showing them that you have nothing to hide as opposed to getting a lawyer first, which somehow suggests that you are guilty.
That’s why I mentioned that they need to arrest you first. Colorado case law is very clear that anyone can refuse tests without probable cause. One probable cause is established the driver needs to comply and should choose a blood test.
Sounds reasonable. Field sobriety tests are a joke. Not only can they easily be manipulated by police to show probable cause for DWI arrest and BAC testing, some are difficult or impossible for many people to do even when they are stone cold sober.