There's a crime at your workplace; can your employer compel you to talk to the police?

In My Humble Opinion
61

I’m not suggesting somebody be deliberately evasive. If you don’t want to be cooperative, then just don’t guess and don’t volunteer more than you know.

In practical terms, that means that you probably won’t have much to offer: you could make a guess on what you saw, but more likely you can defer to “I’m not really sure”, since you are being strictly literal with the information that you have.

Cops can’t really do much with somebody who just doesn’t know much; it’s the quickest and easiest way for them to just move on to better witnesses.

Have you ever seen big shot CEOs testify before congress? Suddenly they come across as the most incompetent person in charge; they don’t seem to know anything about how their business operates.

This is by design. If you are faced with answering questions, or getting fired, then you can choose to answer the questions to avoid getting fired, and still not be effusive with your answers.

Again, the advice is: don’t lie and don’t guess. So if you are being questioned about the guy who just came in, and you might think you recognize him, but you’ve never been introduced, then you can certainly answer “I’m not sure” if you are asked if you can identify him.

Eventually, police will just consider you a dead end and move on.

(This happens a lot with neighbors to some domestic situation. “Did you hear anything?”’ “Do you have cameras?” If you tell the cops you won’t answer their questions, they may move on, but they may also decide that you are in fact withholding information, and press further. But if you just go “sorry…I didn’t hear anything”, they aren’t going to waste any more time with you)

All the lawyer can do is tell you “you don’t have to answer that”. You can do that yourself - “I’m not going to answer that.”

No magic lawyer powers at play.

But, you the client aren’t doing yourself any favors if you do. You seem to think that “they can’t use your silence against you” to mean that cops can’t follow up with you if you don’t cooperate. But that’s certainly not the case. If you aren’t answering, that could be a reason to increase their suspicions of you, and double down on investigating you. Whereas a simple response, without elaboration, gets you out of the situation.

If you had nothing to do with the murder, I’d advise to answer those questions. Clamming up is just going to make you look suspicious.

“Did you dislike the manager enough to hurt him”. “No”

“Wasn’t his car keyed?” “I guess. Somebody said something about that. I don’t really remember.”

You think the better option is to huddle with your lawyer before declaring that you won’t answer these questions and are invoking your rights?

I’m guessing you figure the cops will just stop inquiring about you. But if you are the detective, is that really your reaction to such a move?

I think my suggestion is creating a lot less hassle, and in fact assisting the police with moving on to better suspects and more relevant clues.

62

I’ve worked with several companies that have had safety and security programs that made it very clear (usually through employee materials and training sessions) that every employee is expected to contribute to creating and maintaining a “safe and secure” workplace. This includes reporting suspicious individuals, reporting unsafe conditions, not allowing strangers to follow through secure points of entry, etc. I’ve interviewed many employees about security incidents. In several cases, employees were disciplined for either unsafe actions or for failing to cooperate/comply with security practices or programs. One individual refused to be interviewed regarding the theft of several laptops and he/she was suspended indefinitely without pay. However, these were nearly all internal investigations and did not involve law enforcement. Big companies do not like to air their dirty laundry if they can avoid it.

63

There is not really any difference. Remember the cops hold all the cards. They do this every day, they know if you are a suspect or not, the evidence that makes them think that (and don’t have to tell you), they know exactly what a jury will think looks guilty, the exact line between being uncooperative and obstructing justice, and have countless tricks to make you admit to something.

Not if they think you committed the crime, then it’s the quickest and easiest way to talk yourself into a felony sentence. And you don’t know if they think that when you start talking they are very careful to make sure their actual suspect doesn’t know that.

Lawyers don’t say “never talk to the cops” because they don’t want witnesses giving information about crimes, it’s because there are many many ways you can talk yourself into felony sentence. Absolutely speaking to the cops but trying to be uncooperative is the worst possible option it’s making the cops job easier.

64

Which is totally different as they have to testify or they can go to prison. It might seem like they are just regular guys trying to be uncooperative and say as little as possible. But their every word has been been carefully crafted by a team of lawyers who earn more in an hour than you do in a year, and practiced over and over to make sure they don’t accidentally stray into something incriminating.

If you tried that with a cop you would get tripped up and tricked into saying something that can get you in trouble in a minute

65

No, they really don’t. Sometimes cops ask people questions that they don’t know the answers to.

Hardly. In fact, sometimes they make an arrest and are overturned by the prosecutor’s office, who ends up dismissing the case for lack of evidence.

No, really, they don’t. I’ve watched countless police interrogations. They have an advantage if they have advance knowledge (something true of anybody), and that’s why they usually interview their suspect after they’ve spoken to everybody else first. But there aren’t any special tactics that they employ.

That’s absurd. If I didn’t commit a crime, I’d be hard pressed to “talk myself” into a felony sentence. Even a confession isn’t admissible until the prosecutors first establish that a crime occurred.

How much do I earn in a year?

If I say I don’t recall, or don’t remember, it’s going to get me in trouble, or cause me to confess to something?

I don’t see the logic behind that. Just having a vague notion that cops have special powers isn’t enough to convince me

66

I firmly believe if you make yourself appear to be intentionally vague or obstructive to the police, you have a much better chance of either talking yourself into being a suspect or inviting greater police scrutiny.

The police, at least in this particular scenario, are trying to do their actual job of preventing or incarcerating assholes who show up at their ex’s place of work to beat them and trash their office.

If I were a police officer, any answer other than “I was sitting at my desk and next thing I know, Lucy’s ex-boyfriend was in here shoving her and throwing shit around” would sound odd, if not suspicious.

If I were the employer whose responsibility is the safety of my employees, I might start to wonder why you were being so uncooperative.

I might have questions about how Lucy’s ex found his way into the building, given most offices have security. I might wonder if another employee let him in. And maybe through the investigation, it comes to light that you were chatting with Lucy’s ex at the last company barbeque for a long time. Maybe you barely remember the conversation about the Jets or want bands you like or whatever,

So now all of a sudden, you’re an uncooperative person of interest with a potential link to the suspect.

IMHO, better to be minimally factual and truthful with the police to get you disqualified as a “person of uselessness” asap. “I was here doing my work sitting next to so and so,heard this, saw that, then you guys showed up.”

67

To be honest, the more I work with CEOs and senior executives in large corporations, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that they actually are that dumb and ignorant about how their business actually operates.

68

Other than seeing you walk into the interview room, how would the employer know to what extent you cooperated? They couldn’t demand to be present, could they? And presumably the transcript of your interview wouldn’t be public unless it was presented as evidence at trial, right?

IANAL, but surely these interviews aren’t public events.

69

What if you said

“I was sitting at my desk and I heard a commotion. There was a lot of confusion, and I heard yelling and screaming, but I didn’t get a good look at who was involved and don’t really know what happened .” Or just “sorry, I didn’t get a good look.”

That’s not odd or suspicious, is it? It means you weren’t observant, and maybe the cops would think that you’re a little dim for not paying more attention. But how does it draw suspicion to you?

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Far too many people, eager to be a good witness, will confidently describe details they may not have actually seen. False identification is a genuine problem.

So, believe it or not, cops aren’t going to get hostile if you just don’t make for a good witness. They’ll move on to somebody with better knowledge. And they may appreciate the fact that you aren’t trying to interject more into the case than you can actually verify (one of the most frustrating things that can happen for attorneys is when somebody says something definitive in an interview and then gets on the stand and starts equivocating about their observations)

70

Huh? I can’t remember a time when the police have interviewed people at my workplace where some member of management, legal, HR or asset protection was NOT in the room.

71

Yes and sometimes they ask questions because they think you committed a crime and want you to admit to it. You don’t get to know what kind of interrogation you are agreeing to when you agree to speak to the cops.

This right here is why every lawyer will say don’t talk to the cops. There are countless people in prison right now who say said exactly this.

Yes over multiple hours of questioning. When in fact you do remember and then you admit to that 4 hours in, there is now evidence you lied to police about the crime. If you lied when you said you didn’t remember, why should they believe you when you said you were just an innocent bystander?

And again why would you talk to the cops and not cooperate? If you are innocent and not a suspect why not tell them everything? Of the available options either saying nothing, or fully cooperating seem like reasonable options (in the situation in the OP it doesn’t seem too likely you’ll be a suspect). Talking to the cops and then not cooperating is the worst possible option.

I have no idea but i’d bet it’s less than hourly rate of the team of lawyers that prepares a CEO to testify before Congress :wink:

72

It’s really not hard to deny that you committed a crime.

Agreeing to answer any questions doesn’t obligate you to answer any other question, and you can nearly always leave an interrogation if you choose to (cops make this clear; otherwise there is a real risk that this would be construed to be an involuntary detention, making the statements subject to suppression).

So the risk that your participation in an interrogation is going to expose you to inquiries about any subject at all is quite low.

You think that there are countless people in prison who didn’t commit any crime but managed to talk their way into incarceration? There’s a lot to criticize about our criminal justice system, but that’s not an issue.

First, I’m not going to sit for a 4 hour interrogation when I’m there as a possible witness to a fight. Second, I’m not going to suddenly remember something that I said I didn’t recall. I mean, maybe the officer might do something to refresh my recollection, but that’s not evidence that I lied. Forgetful? Maybe.

I never said to not cooperate. Answer questions truthfully, and don’t guess. Simple as that. If you aren’t sure, say so. But being cooperative doesn’t mean that you have to be an active participant, or need to volunteer anything more than the literal truth (and oftentimes the most truthful thing you can say is that you aren’t sure)

No, no, no. You said that they earn more in an hour than I do all year. Don’t back down now.

73

Because that’s a lie that can be verified. Presumably you didn’t just shrug and carry on with your work, you talked to your co-workers about this crazy shit that just happened with Lucy getting beating up by her ex in the office. So they can confirm to police for that in fact you did get a good look at who was involved and did know what happened. So the police now have evidence you lied to them, and if they are feds you have just committed a felony (and regardless is certainly going to get to you fired more certainly than just not speaking to the cops).

Again, what benefit do you gain by lying? Either say nothing and face the consequences with you job or fully cooperate and face the consequences with the cops. Why would you choose the worst of both worlds?

74

And a fair choice for you to make. As long as you understand that your civil rights to speech and to silence do not force your employer from acting upon your exercise of those rights by firing you. You want to spend money suing them for doing something within their rights to do, you are free to do that. Doubt a union would.

Personally I want someone who committed a crime in the workplace, especially one that threatened workplace safety, or will make my job harder in the future, caught. If I have information that might help that happen I am definitely going to tell police what I know. No coercion required. And if I was the victim I would expect the same of others.

75

That’s really just a variation of my example. The point is, cops tend to look for things that are weird or don’t quite add up. If you were two cubicles down from the incident and was like “I didn’t see nothin’!” they’d probably just think you simply don’t want to get involved.

Your company, OTOH, might take issue with you intentionally being evasive or uncooperative.

76

You said ..

if you don’t want to be cooperative just give dull non answers

77

No its not

That would be what other people told me about what happened. Cops don’t want me to tell them about what others saw. They want my personal observations. If I say I don’t get a good look, you can’t prove I did.

Let’s suppose I ran to the break room and said “I saw exactly who did it. It was Joe!” and then told the cops “I don’t know who it was.” You’re right, they have me for lying!

(And in that case I wouldn’t recommend that you change your story. If you didn’t want to be a witness, you shouldn’t have acted like one).

big fucking deal. I’m a shitty witness. The lawyers will need to figure out what to make of that.

It’s not the dire crime you think it is.

Even in those rare cases where it’s the feds investigating, prosecutors are going to have a difficult time establishing a knowing and willful misrepresentation when a person says they don’t recall something. People are allowed to have bad memory.

Fair enough. I should have said “if you don’t want to have to testify/be involved”

78

IF you are just a witness that’s what they want. If on the other hand they think you are a suspect they don’t care about that they just want to find inconsistencies and other weaknesses in your account that can be used against you and hopefully get you to confess.

This is my last comment on this sidetrack. “Do not speak to the cops” isn’t a thing because the cops should never get any information about any crime ever*, it’s because if you speak to the cops you can very possibly give them the evidence they need to convict you without realizing it (or even realizing you are a suspect until its too late). “Speak to the cops but act dumb” does not prevent that, in fact it only makes it more likely.

(Ok actually last comment) Yeah that’s easier said than done though. I have a friend who was interrogated for like 6+ hours by the cops after he reported his car stolen and it was used in a joyride that caused massive amounts of damage, that the cops thought he’d done. He could have walked out at any time but the cops don’t make that clear and as a random dude who’s not used to dealing with the cops it takes some balls to walk out in the middle of an interrogation

[1] in fact in the circumstances in the OP (where a coworker was just attacked by her estranged boyfriend) I would say you have a moral duty to tell the cops everything truthfully, and put up with the risk should they have you fingered as a suspect for some reason.

  1. Footnotes ↩︎

79

When an employee threatens to get a lawyer I typically encourage them to do so if it would make them more comfortable. It’s a polite, professional way to tell them I don’t care about their threat.

80

I feel like there’s something missing from your story other than the cops didn’t believe your friend’s very plausible story of someone stealing his car and going on a destructive joy ride with it.

Like the cops aren’t playing 4D chess here. If you did nothing wrong, it’s really unclear to me how you might “accidently incriminate yourself”. Particularly in this workplace example where you have an office full of people who very clearly saw you weren’t the one who beat your coworker and trashed the place.

I guess if NO ONE says anything to the cops so maybe they have no idea who the suspect is.