This is sensible, but the link in the OP, and some subsequent posts seem to be a bit more hard line about not talking at all. I might be reading a bit more into it than I should.
Thus is my take as well. The never statement. I mean I had the police called for me, begged. Then I am not supposed to talk to them. Its0 the extreme blanket position I question.
A lot of these threads also come across as having a pathological distrust or paranoia of the police or government. Kind if like people who record officers making traffic stops or border checks, being as uncooperative as possible, and then posting on YouTube. You aren’t affecting policy. Just being a pain in the ass to some beat cop doing their job.
I mean what is the context of this police investigation? In my personal experience, on the few times I’ve been questioned by the police, it’s usually because a) a crime that has nothing to do with me occurred and they want a statement or b) my friends and I were up to something we shouldn’t have been (i.e. something minor like drinking where we weren’t supposed to).
In the case of a), I don’t see any reason not to provide information on what I saw (or didn’t see). Indeed, civilized society depends on such cooperation. And in the case of b), well, generally the best approach is to be cooperative while revealing as little actual information as possible. IMHO, being uncooperative, particularly if you are somehow involved in the situation, is a good way to actually get taken downtown until the cops feel inclined to sort things out.
If you wake up in a hotel room next to a dead hooker with no recollection of what happened. Lawyer might be the best option at that point.
This struck me as funny. 
They did not inform our client that he was in custody when they started questioning him and asked permission to search the car. He was in handcuffs at the time, therefore a custodial setting. He refused permission for the deputies to search, but acquiesced after they told him they would just get a warrant. His statements and consent to search was involuntary, therefore inadmissible.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found myself embroiled in an art theft scheme, a grieving rich widow, a dead socialite, a suspicious art dealer, a disinherited daughter, and an Irish-born Boston Police Inspector (“I thought Boston didn’t have inspectors?”; “I’m the only one.”) Man is it annoying and inconvenient, and I have to use all of my wits to outfox everyone and not get caught in bed by the widow!
Stranger
I think the key there is that the client initially refused and was then compelled under apparebt duress to consent. I think the answer then is the police are insisting that you should something to make their lives easier from a purely administrative standpoint, you probably should be inclined to oppose it. Obtaining a warrant for a search is a very routine thing for an investigating police officer to do, it doesn’t really take all that much effort, and it assures that a court has some preliminary evaluation of the justification for the search which frankly makes for a more substantial case if they actually have good reason, and provides a check if they are just being excessive in asserting authority. If the police cannot hurdle that low bar, they probably don’t actually have good reason to be asking anything else of you.
Stranger
We have repeatedly said that you should call 911 and report a crime.
What this is about is being called into a police interrogation room, and being questioned as a person of interest, or even a suspect. Do not do that without a lawyer.
I lead a dull life. 
On the other hand, confessing to a stupid, vicious crime can be a great relief. Start by hinting around to a reporter.
Is it really all that easy and routine? Suppose I insist on them getting the warrant. In the real world, which is the more likely reaction that the police officer will be thinking to themself:
- He’s entitled to the warrant, and it’s not a big deal, so I’ll drop everything else I had planned and go to the court for the warrant. -OR-
- What a pain in the ass. Once I get that warrant, I’m gonna try extra hard to either find something or invent something. Or at least be a pain in his ass.
In many jurisdictions police can have access to call-in or electronic on-line warrants; they don’t have to go to court for the issuance of the warrant or take up a bunch of time (which they are getting paid for regardless, and cops love overtime). It basically ensures that they aren’t just casually trolling for anything they can find to bust your balls but it isn’t like it is in any way onerous or difficult to get such warrants, and if they are going to “try extra hard to either find something or invent something” then you are already dealing with someone who you don’t want to give a lot of latitude to.
As someone noted above, the police aren’t trying to ensure justice is being served, or protect the innocent, or be your friend, or whatever; their job is literally looking for crimes, and the default assumption is that if you aren’t personally guilty of a crime, someone you know probably is, and if they can find something on you they can get you to talk about it. Asking that a police officer obtain a warrant to search your car or your house is like asking that an electrician show you that he’s licensed and bonded before he pulls your electrical panel; it is basic due diligence and the officer knows that protection from unwarranted search is a basic right, so if he’s getting wound up about it you for sure want the rationale for it documented, especially if he is going to “invent” something, because he’ll probably also “invent” (i.e. fabricate) a reason for the warrant that will invalidate it should it later go to trial.
Stranger
Thanks!
I was once pulled over as part of a Sobriety Checkpoint. I was totally sober, but my coat had been in an apartment where a bong was being shared by a group of guys. I was in the bathroom helping the apartment owner (a friend) fix a toilet.
I reeked of marijuana but hadn’t smoked in ~two weeks (I was prepping for an insurance blood draw). The Checkpoint cop wanted my permission to search my vehicle. I knew it was clean, but declined. He told me he’d radio for a drug dog, and I told him to be my guest.
When the dog and handler arrived, there was a discussion and then the dog handler came over to explain things to me. He looked at my eyes and said I didn’t look high but there was a strong odor. I explained why and offered my coat for a whiff.
So, the drug dog never left the car and the handler explained that he didn’t find probable cause to go any further. The Checkpoint cop was all pissy giving back my license and told me I’d wasted his time.
That is supposedly the true-story plot of “99 Problems”: Jay-Z (in his car full of cocaine) was pulled over by the police for being black. After refusing a search, the cops were forced to radio for a drug dog, but it took too long to arrive so they had to let him go.
Correct.
Because you may say that she came at you and you pushed her away. We all know you were defending yourself but now YOU initiated the physical contact. As Morecombe and Wise would say, “Get out of that one.” Let me ask you this, what would have gone wrong had you contacted an attorney before talking to police?
You should always refuse a vehicle search.
I’ve seen many traffic stops on “Cops” that ended badly, because some passerby had tossed drugs in through an open car window. 
Well I did say she came at me and I pushed her away very forcibly. Only she initiated the conflict by coming at me with a knife to my chest and I answered with reasonable force. Had I hired an attorney after expressly requesting the police to come and assist me because I had been stabbed by her it would have not only have appeared inappropriate, but also rude. Then the police would have had reason to suspect I had initiated the call to cover myself.
That and while I was bleeding out in the yard near death and they came to my requested aid I told them she stabbed me I gave them permission to enter the house and arrest her. Should I have waited for an attorney? Should I not have given my statement to the police before I died? Where does this never talk to the police without an attorney stop?
Oh, and she lawyered up and said nothing. Never took the stand. She spent two and half years locked up.
Did you actually give a statement, e.g. did the officer take a report verbatim, or did you just say, “She stabbed me with a knife, and she’s still in the house!” Obviously if you’ve called the police as a victim of a crime you are going to give them enough information to arrest the suspect, and assuming that they had sufficient cause (e.g. your bleeding stab wound) they didn’t actually need your permission to enter the house to arrest her, but particularly in a domestic violence scenario I would never offer a statement or hand over your phone without first reviewing with a lawyer. Domestic violence is almost always “he said/she said” (or he said/he said and so forth) situation where it is basically one person’s word against the other and making a misstatement or misinterpretation can result in grave consequences.
Worrying about being “rude” by asking to speak with your lawyer before making a statement is misplaced priorities at their finest. The police and prosecutor are not only more conversant with the law than you are, but they also have training, experience, control over the environment, and all of the time in the world, as well as an agenda to turn any case into a conviction, and they are probably not going to be impressed by your politeness or compliance. Convictions overturned on appeal from undivulged exculpatory evidence, new or recanted testimony, or just plain fraud are rife with defendants who knew they were innocent but were worn down by hours of interrogation, confusing and misleading claims by police, or just misunderstanding the nature of the accusation and consequences and just signed a confession out of exhaustion. A lawyer is your fundamental bulwark against being caught in such a situation and making a statement that can be later used as evidence against you, even if it was out of exhaustion, coercion, or confusion.
I’m glad that all worked out for you but that really could have gone another way, especially if they’d looked through your phone and found anything that even slightly suggested that you had provoked the incident or just ‘felt’ that you weren’t telling the full truth.
Well, yeah, she unambiguously committed a grievous crime. It isn’t as if “lawyering up” is going to protect you from the consequences of your actions, and most of the job of a defense attorney isn’t to come up with some brilliant strategy about gloves not fitting/you must be acquitting, but rather helping their client navigate the pre-trial and trial process to get the best possible plea agreement. But it is not at all uncommon for both participants in a violent domestic dispute to end up being charged and tried; just because she was guilty does not, in the view of police or a prosecutor, make you innocent by default.
Stranger
For me I guess a better question would be is there any circumstances a lawyer would recommend we go to an interrogation room and speak with police?
As I am not going do so unless my lawyer says its the best thing to do (and then assuming its my lawyer not one appointed to me). And if its the feds that want to talk to me, its going to take some convincing from my lawyer thats it’s a good idea (as “lying” to them is a crime in and of itself, so why open yourself up to that, even if you don’t plan on lying?).
I mean do people with competent lawyers, and who are sensible enough to listen to them, ever actually get interviewed by police? Or is it literally only the people without decent legal representation or who are dumb enough to ignore their advice (or start talking before asking for a lawyer) that ever end up talking to police?