But I did and there were no bad consequences. So never doesn’t apply. I in fact requested their assistance and no lawyers were involved (or paid) on my part.
Maybe you are sure you have never committed any felonies, but can you say the same about all of your close relatives?
Also, maybe by some weird chance you had a one night stand with a woman found murdered the next day.
Are you so sure that you won’t confess, even accidentally, like so many have?
By coming in? Yes. Through a telephone call? Maybe not.
Just dropping in here to note that there isn’t a person alive who can definitively state that they are innocent of any crime. There are literally tens of thousands of criminal statutes at the federal, state and local level. And any statement you give to the police that seems like evidence of a specific crime can be used to prosecute you, even if that crime is unrelated to their investigation.
It may be unlikely that cops investigating a murder are going to charge you with aggravated mopery based on something you let slip in an interview. But they could use the threat of charges to ensure your cooperation if they feel you’re being evasive or not giving the full story.
Sure, you were lucky. Just like if you stand in a field during a lightning storm with a metal rod in your hand… And don’t get bit by a bolt.
Doesn’t mean it is a smart thing.
While I wouldn’t make the same decision, I respect your right to speak with the police and I’m not going to criticize you for it. I do want to ask, though, why you believe that your choosing to speak to the police changed the outcome versus you invoking your right to remain silent.
To add some nuance to this, you may not be entitled to a lawyer just yet. Lawyers are not required to be provided just because you are arrested or detained; they are required at critical stages of the court case (so, your court hearings) and when you are “in custody” and “being interrogated”.
Note that not all detentions are considered to be custodial (for example, when you are stopped on the side of the road), and not all interactions when in custody are interrogation (including the asking of routine booking questions, like your name or address).
So, the answer may be that you can’t find a lawyer, and you just have to understand that you probably aren’t helping yourself if you volunteer information (note: spontaneous utterances are immune from Miranda requirements) as a show of honesty, or candor, or as a plea for sympathy.
And yet many (probably most) people do the same thing. Not every encounter with the cops is an evil encounter, although pop tv shows would like you to think so. Yes, the police can do bad things, but more often they actually are the good guys.
A few fuck ups makes them all look bad.
This is like saying “I jumped headfirst into murky water and nothing happened.” Sure, you get can get lucky, but you can also get brain-damaged when there happens to be a rock or submerged log. Except in the case of police, they are looking for ways in which you have committed a crime, even if it isn’t the crime they are specifically investigating because it gives them leverage over you.
I think something people often don’t understand is that you are potentially committing crimes on a regular basis even though you may not realize it. There are many laws on the books that you are unaware of and often exist primarily to allow police to detain and charge you with “something”, even if it boils down to conspiracy to commit jaywalking. I’m sure @Moriarty and other lawyers can elaborate with specific experience, but giving personal information such as access to your texts or emails over to police without any agreement or assurance about how information will be used is essentially signing them a blank check and saying, “Don’t overdraft my account.”
As far as being “innocent until proven guilty” this is one of those so oft-repeated colloquial sayings that it has essentially lost all meaning in the general context. You are not, as far as police or a prosecutor are concerned, “innocent”, and they have wide latitude to investigate, arrest, charge, and try you based upon little more than suspicion and hearsay. A cop can essentially arrest you for any suspicion they can demonstrate, and while if it turns out to be wrong or fabricated they may suffer disciplinary action but they aren’t generally criminally or civilly liable unless they can be demonstrated to have violated your civil rights so there is little incentive for restraint. (Thanks, qualified immunity!) A prosecutor has wide discretion to charge anyone with any crime they choose, and it is the truly incompetent or stupendously unlucky prosecutor who will bring a case before a grand jury and not secure an indictment.
What you do have is a presumption of innocence in a trial court of criminal law, which basically means that the burden is on the prosecutor to demonstrate a valid theory of the case and supporting evidence to back it up, while the defense has no obligation to prove anything or even present an alternative theory of the case, only present “reasonable doubt” upon the evidence and testimony supporting the prosecution. Of course, this is all in the eyes and minds of a jury, which is a notoriously unreliable measure of factual innocence, especially when racial, socioeconomic, or other biases may take precedence over reason. In any case, you do not want to go to trial even if you are innocent because it is expensive, time-consuming, potentially life-altering, and basically a roll of the dice, hence why most criminal prosecutions end in plea agreements.
Stranger
Absolutely. And you can probably wear a copper pot on your head in a lightning storm, or drive without a seat belt on.
But that would be taking a foolish risk.
Looks like I’m more likely to be harmed and attacked IMHO forum than by the police. I realize that the police have done bad things and that its not popular to even hint at trusting them but they have never accused me of being stupid or foolish.
The policeman isn’t your friend.
A friend who happens to be a cop has told me that the percentages are in favor of the fuck-ups. He says there are more fuck-ups and cops who will not rat on the fuck-ups than there are “good cops”.
I fairness to Si_Amigo, my interactions are with people who ended up in some legal jeopardy, so my perspective is skewed. I mean, some people do get identified as “victim”, rather than “suspect”, and may be sincerely treated with kid gloves. I’ve seen police excuse illegal conduct (e.g. recording somebody without their knowledge, which is a crime in Florida) because they have testimony to provide against somebody that the government wants to convict.
But, it’s not an assurance, and there is some risk in being so transparent. Promises of leniency need to be in writing, and cooperation should be done deliberately and with focused precision if you truly want to safeguard your liberty.
Never talking to the police is a strategy that is “what’s best for you.” It has the most upside / least downside, and is unlikely to blow up in your face.
Doing what’s best for you is also the strategy that has caused who knows how much suffering among people in this country and worldwide. If the Kitty Genovese thing had actually happened as described, it’s just people minding their own business and not getting involved with the police. Some criminal brazenly stabs a rider on the subway… I didn’t see anything, I don’t want to get involved. Getting involved is how the police find that joint in your pocket.
If you only do the right thing because it’s completely risk free, or compulsory, you’re not really doing much.
You can still make an anonymous report - “911, there’s an emergency that needs the police. I don’t want to give my name.”
That’s what your client says. Or did all five deputies admit that?
The constant reminders on this thread (and similar threads) that the police are allowed to lie, and that they presume everyone to be guilty (they’re just unsure of what) makes me suspect that they’d be crazy to admit that they forgot to Mirandize the suspect.
How does this play out in the real world? If the bodycams are active, I suppose it would be difficult to lie about it. But when the bodycams are NOT running, does it actually happen that police will admit to such mistakes?
None of their reports mentions Mirandizing him before they began questioning him or searching his car.
It isn’t that you just shouldn’t talk to the police, or volunteer information, or act like one of those sovereign citizen assholes and insist that the police don’t have any “authoritah!” over you; obviously, if you get pulled over for a traffic infraction the smart thing to do is to hand over identification and insurance information, answer questions ‘simply’ (e.g. if they ask you where you are going, just say “the story”; don’t volunteer that you are going to pick up a case of liquor or you’re planning a prank on your neighbor), and accept the citation without argument. Obviously if you see a serious crime in progress it is your civil responsibility to report it, which you can do without further disclosing personal information or answering questions.
But in the situation where you are being asked for details about your activity, or even transitory access to your personal information and devices, or may be in any way implicated in the potential crime they are investigating, you should be very circumspect about what information you provide, and if you are being asked to “make a statement”, provide unrestrained access to your information-containing devices, or be interviewed in custody, you should almost certainly ask to have a lawyer present and consult with them before actually providing anything that might in any way be incriminating, even things that you think are minor infractions or “prove” your innocence. You literally cannot prove that you are innocent, especially in the eyes of someone who reflexively assumed culpability; you can only provide information that may reinforce their belief that you are hiding something.
Stranger
So even if they did Mirandize him, forgetting to include it on their report will be valuable to the defense. Interesting. Thank you.
Police do not need to “mirandize” a suspect before searching a vehicle or structure; all they need to do is obtain permission of an owner or claim exigent circumstances. Police also do not need to mirandize a suspect before asking questions, especially if that person is not in custody and is providing information “voluntarily”, even if they may believe that they are under duress. Depending on circumstances those statements may not be admissible, but they can provide information that leads to further investigation, and then a defense lawyer has to make the whole “fruit of a poisoned tree” argument or demonstrate false pretenses vice just not answering leading questions to begin with.
Simply saying, “I would like to consult with my lawyer before making a statement or answering questions,” is not prejudicial, does not indicate guilt in a court of law, and frankly is in the same vein as “I would like to consult with my doctor before taking this medical treatment.” Any police officer who takes this as inherently suspicious was already suspecting that you committed a crime anyway, so you might as well get a qualified opinion about whether and how much you should say.
Stranger