I’m not saying that it should. My point was just that the cops don’t have to be candid about what they are investigating, or why they are interested in speaking with a person. That’s perhaps good police work, but it’s also a reason to be circumspect with the police.
That’s a good show, and a lot of the guys they bring in aren’t even really “fooled” or “tricked” or “badgered”, they just kinda give it up.
I heard a detective interviewed once on the radio and he was talking about the phenomenon of people just confessing, and his opinion was a large number of people, feeling like they’re already “caught” because police brought them in, really “want to get their side of the story” out there.
But, but, but…
In reading your OP, I inferred from it that you are asking whether you should subject yourself to questioning by the police when you are innocent of any crime. Did I misunderstand?
Because if the coppers wanted to question me about a murder that was committed last Saturday night, and I know that I was at my Saturday bingo game with Maude and Tilly that night, I think that my instinct would be to welcome the questioning so that I may prove my innocence (assuming Maude and TIlly got my back).
In other words, I did not do the murder and I will prove it so that you can cross me off your list.
mmm
That reminds me of this scene from The Shield:
“How much memory does that thing got?”
Stranger
So, you are thinking about this rationally, i.e. if you provide exculpatory evidence, the police will accept it and leave you alone. The problem is that if you are in an interview and the police are asking about your alibi, they likely already suspect that you have some involvement in the crime. So you provide your alibi about playing bingo with Maude and Tilly, and they ask you to expand (“How many bingos did you get? Who won the big prize? What kind of hat was Tilly wearing?”). Then Detective Briscoe steps out for some coffee, and Detective Logan kibbitzes with you about how the bad the Mets are doing. After a few minutes, Briscoe steps back in and informs you that they just talked to Maude, and she says that not only was Tilly not wearing a hat and you only scored two bingos instead of the four you claimed but that you also left early, so what else are you hiding, pal? Next thing you know, you are telling them everything you can think of to dispute their (untrue, because it is totally legal for police to lie to you) claims and maybe even throwing shade on someone else, looking to anyone reading the interview transcript like you have something to hide even though your biggest crime was borrowing Bernice’s spare purple bingo marker and forgetting to return it.
A defense attorney, on the other hand, would have interviewed you seperately, made a simple statement based on your recollection and any other facts at hand like the ATM you pulled cash out just before the game, and if presented with some kind of bullshit contradiction would have just reinforced the fact that your story is as related and if the police have any evidence to the contrary they can take it to court. For the cost of a couple hours of that lawyer’s time, he or she may have just saved you the cost of further investigation, a potential arraignment and grand jury hearing, and maybe even a trial if a prosecutor decides that he’s got enough to push on and no better suspect, particularly if he can find eyewitness who will report on someone vaguely matching your description the night of the murder, and maybe some kind of motive to justify a plausible theory of the case. Convictions have been made of this little, especially by people convinced that they don’t have anything to hide from police.
Stranger
Yes, but I think the lawyer pointed out in the video that even when innocent, you can set yourself up for more trouble by speaking to the police. He had a client go in to talk and ended up being charged with accessory due to the fact that she texted with someone and did not tell them.
You make a strangely compelling argument.
The other problem is the assumption that the police want to find the truth when in reality, in a significant number of cases, they want a confession/conviction.
Didn’t we have a previous thread on this subject, in which the OP was exasperated about guilty parties not taking every opportunity to slither out of their crimes?
I believe so and I believe I stated in that thread that if no one spoke to the police for fear of being of becoming the accused we would have lawlessness. The police need people to help them solve crimes, which involves people being brought in for questioning.
My personal experience is that talking to the police was the right thing to do when I was stabbed, even though it could have turned into a domestic violence situation where I could have been accused of instigating a fight. The evidence was clear that I had only been reacting to an attack and that my attacker choose to use a knife. Had I said nothing she most likely never would have gone t o prison for trying to kill me.
Well, that comes from the perspective of not being immediately assumed by police of being engaged in criminal activity even if there is no evidence of a crime, and for a significant portion of the population the assumption of criminality is the default bias. I know one officer whose catchphrase was “Everybody is guilty; you just have to determine of what,” and meant it, which is unfortunately all too common of an assumption even among well-intended police because when you deal with lying scumbags on a daily basis you start to assume everyone is a lying scumbag. So the ideal that you should talk to the police if you are not guilty of anything is an idealistic sentiment but can get you in trouble in reality if the police have any reason—valid or imagined—to believe that you are involved in a crime.
Stranger
No, that comes from a real world situation where I a half Mexican was stabbed by my half black girlfriend. Not some idealist belief. I could easily been railroaded on a charge of domestic violance but was not because I chose to speak with the police and take control of the situation. Silence on my part would have had the negative outcome you speak of, would not have helped me.
This blanket response of never talking to the police without a lawyer is not one I would ever support for all circumstances. At some point you are just lining lawyers pockets.
Your innocence is not something that needs proven. You are innocent until proven guilty!
Either that, or somebody who actually is innocent decides to “try and help straighten things out.” My boss, a lawyer of thirty years experience, says more people get into trouble this way…
We have a case right now where our client supposedly “concealed weapons” in his car. The cops, brought in by a neighbor’s complaint, handcuffed him, sat in a patrol car, questioned him and then searched his car. They found several firearms in his car. Not one of the five deputies on the scene Mirandized him. They also pulled the old “if you don’t give us permission, we’ll just go get a warrant while you wait” routine. We did a Motion to Suppress…just about everything. Fruit from the poisoned tree.
But did you go to the police station to be “interviewed” in an interrogation room, where the police would essentially have total control over the situation if no attorney is present to represent your interests?
In a situation where you are being questioned by police, you do not have “control over the situation”, i.e. the questions that are asked, what gets written in a report, or any decision about whether to arrest, arraign, or put you on trial. You only have control over yourself and what you say, which should be as little as possible because even if you aren’t guilty of the crime in question, police might decide you are guilty of something else and press you into self-contradiction or “hiding” something. Any experienced defense attorney can provide you with a bevy of stories about clients pressured into saying things that were not true or were taken out of context under the pressure of an interrogation or even ‘casual’ questioning.
Stranger
They interviewed me in the ICU. Gave them permission to get into my phone as well.
At a risk of taking this off on a tangent: I don’t have a lawyer. Let’s say I get arrested or otherwise detained for questioning by police. How do I find a lawyer on the spot when I’m being detained?
(Do not need answer fast, fortunately.)
You tell them you do not want to answer questions without a lawyer. Then they have to stop and let you contact one. Often the call either goes to a family member or to one of those lawyers that advertises heavily on TV. There is a reason the advertise so much and repeat their number.
In my case I was the one who made contact with the police by asking (screaming for) my neighbor to call them. To not talk with them after requesting their assistance would have been inappropriate.
<Defense attorneys everywhere recoil in shock and horror, reflexively screaming:> “Never do that!”
Stranger