# US Law: Tips & leads from non-lawered interrogations. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766 "2009-06-23T21:30:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/1 "2009-06-23T21:30:28Z")
Watching a ‘real-life’ cop show today, I saw a teenage girl talking with a detective in an interrogation room. I don’t know whether the girl had spoken to a lawyer or not yet (there was none present at the time), but she had given a few pieces of factual evidence to the detective: i.e. her whereabouts of the night in question, and the names/description of people with her. From what I gathered, the girl was not a principal in a crime, but may have been a direct witness to things. My question, is can the police use these ‘leads’ and go question those in her company? Can they do this solely on the teenager’s answers, or must they have some other evidence to approach the other persons of interest? Does it matter if the teenager was a witness or a principal? Or, is all of this really dependent on the judge’s intepretation? Tripler And no, this is not an “Need Help Quick!” thread. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/2 "2009-06-23T21:55:10Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > Can they do this solely on the teenager’s answers, or must they have some other evidence to approach the other persons of interest? Cops don’t need anything to approach a person of interest. Now whether that person decides to talk to them, and what the cops can do if they don’t want to talk, is a different question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/3 "2009-06-23T21:57:16Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > Watching a ‘real-life’ cop show today, I saw a teenage girl talking with a detective in an interrogation room. I don’t know whether the girl had spoken to a lawyer or not yet (there was none present at the time), but she had given a few pieces of factual evidence to the detective: i.e. her whereabouts of the night in question, and the names/description of people with her. From what I gathered, the girl was not a principal in a crime, but may have been a direct witness to things. > > My question, is can the police use these ‘leads’ and go question those in her company? Can they do this solely on the teenager’s answers, or must they have some other evidence to approach the other persons of interest? Does it matter if the teenager was a witness or a principal? Or, is all of this really dependent on the judge’s intepretation? > > Tripler > And no, this is not an “Need Help Quick!” thread. 😃 The police can come and question you because they feel like it. They don’t need any reason at all, so, yes, they could go and question someone based on her answers. That sort of encounter would be a “consensual encounter” with police – that is, the police would be free to approach a person and start asking questions, and that person would be free to disregard their questions and go about his business. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/4 "2009-06-23T21:58:34Z")
Information from witnesses is invaluable in solving crimes. The thing is, if a cop says to a kid, “You’re not in any trouble (unless you actually did \_\_\_). I just want to find out who actually _did_ do it” – then they can’t turn that around to charge the kid as an accessory – it’s an informal form of transactional immunity, so far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/5 "2009-06-23T22:03:10Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Information from witnesses is invaluable in solving crimes. The thing is, if a cop says to a kid, “You’re not in any trouble (unless you actually did \_\_\_). I just want to find out who actually _did_ do it” – then they can’t turn that around to charge the kid as an accessory – it’s an informal form of transactional immunity, so far as I can tell. You got your degree from the Jack McCoy School of Law, didn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Thalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@Thalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thalion)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/6 "2009-06-24T09:57:39Z")
As long as the girl was not in custody, they _Miranda_ isn’t required and anything she says can be used. On the other hand, if she should have been Mirandized and wasn’t, then any leads she gave could be tainted and what they lead to could be suppressed (what the courts call “fruit of the poisonous tree”). ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/7 "2009-06-24T14:38:55Z")
> [@Thalion](#): > > As long as the girl was not in custody, they _Miranda_ isn’t required and anything she says can be used. > > On the other hand, if she should have been Mirandized and wasn’t, then any leads she gave could be tainted and what they lead to could be suppressed (what the courts call “fruit of the poisonous tree”). Interesting. . . How would _she_ know if she was to be Mirandized or not? Ultimately she (as we all should know) should not talk to the police, but how would she/her/other lawyers know if she ought to be Mirandized–or is this something that would be determined by her participation as a witness or accessory/principal? Tripler I’m not a lawyer, but I want to play one on TV. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/8 "2009-06-24T14:39:56Z")
I was in an “interrogation room”. Actually it was more like a small generic office with a desk, three chairs, and a video camera up in the corner, and had a cop asking me all sorts of questions. Yup, it was an real interrogation, and no, not a soul advised me of my rights and I didn’t have/want/need a lawyer. I had seen a guy climbing out of a window of a business he’d just burgled. The guy had tripped a silent alarm so a security guard arrived pretty quick and I waited around for the cops while the security guy checked things out. The cops decided to “take me downtown.” (aka: They asked me to follow them in my car.) So I spent probably about a half-hour in the “interrogation room” providing as much information about the burglar as I could and they asked me more and more detailed questions (most of which I couldn’t answer because I wasn’t close enough). I was never in custody, I was a material witness. So no need to advise me of any rights against incriminating myself. And as a material witness, they could and did use the information I provided to go and arrest the dimwit burglar. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/9 "2009-06-24T15:14:14Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > Interesting. . . > > How would _she_ know if she was to be Mirandized or not? Ultimately she (as we all should know) should not talk to the police, but how would she/her/other lawyers know if she ought to be Mirandized–or is this something that would be determined by her participation as a witness or accessory/principal? > > Tripler > I’m not a lawyer, but I want to play one on TV. Being informed of your _Miranda_ rights is required when a person is subjected to a custodial interrogation, that is, when you are arrested and questioning is poised to begin. A person is in custody when “given [the circumstances surrounding the interrogation] . . . a reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” _Thompson v. Keohane_, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). _Miranda_ warnings are based on one’s present situation, not whether one will be a witness or not. Nevertheless, since the remedy for Fourth Amendment violation is typically suppression of evidence, innocent illegal search and seizure victims will have no real recourse. Although Section 1983 affords a civil remedy, state actors, backed by qualified immunity, have a very strong defense in those suits. Additionally, there are such creatures as the _Terry_ stop, predicated on reasonable suspicion rather than the probable cause that must back an arrest, does not require Mirandizing. A _Terry_ stop, the Court’s jurisprudence helpfully informs us, must necessarily be “brief.” Most people being interrogated do not know this backstory, as you point out. As criminal procedure is littered with pitfalls for suspects, it might seem that some sort of information could usefully be given to suspects to ensure that their rights are protected. This is the rationale for the holding in _Miranda_ (and why the Court calls it a “prophylactic rule”–it is designed to prevent constitutional abuses, but it itself is not a free-standing constitutional right). However, after _United States v. Drayton_ (where the Court declined to command police to inform those they wanted to search of their right to refuse the officer permission to search), it seems that _Miranda_ is the outer limit of prophylactic rules that the Court will constitutionalize. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/10 "2009-06-24T16:37:47Z")
Another facet to consider: who has the right/protected interest? If the police obtain evidence, it is (generally) up to the defendant to file a motion to exclude (or whatever remedy may be appropriate). However, if the _defendant’s_ rights were not violated, there may not be sufficient grounds for the motion to succeed. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/11 "2009-06-24T16:47:33Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Another facet to consider: who has the right/protected interest? If the police obtain evidence, it is (generally) up to the defendant to file a motion to exclude (or whatever remedy may be appropriate). However, if the _defendant’s_ rights were not violated, there may not be sufficient grounds for the motion to succeed. It is not that the defendant doesn’t have sufficient grounds, but rather, a defendant does not have standing to vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of a third-party, however palpably unconstitutional the search/interrogation of that third-party might have been. That is, the defendant loses, there is no “maybe” about it. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/12 "2009-06-24T17:04:30Z")
Or in other words, don’t talk to the police. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/13 "2009-06-24T17:35:00Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > It is not that the defendant doesn’t have sufficient grounds, but rather, a defendant does not have standing to vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of a third-party, however palpably unconstitutional the search/interrogation of that third-party might have been. That is, the defendant loses, there is no “maybe” about it. So if the police arrested Mumbles Malone and started questioning him before they Mirandized him, and he tells them that he kidnapped the Lindburg baby and that Lemur866 helped him, Mumbles will have a good shot at getting that confession thrown out at HIS trial, but I won’t be able to get his confession thrown out at MY trial? ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/14 "2009-06-24T17:46:40Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So if the police arrested Mumbles Malone and started questioning him before they Mirandized him, and he tells them that he kidnapped the Lindburg baby and that Lemur866 helped him, Mumbles will have a good shot at getting that confession thrown out at HIS trial, but I won’t be able to get his confession thrown out at MY trial? I thought the Fifth Amendment protects you against _self-_ incrimination. So Mumbles could incriminate you all he wants. Right? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/15 "2009-06-24T17:55:32Z")
> [@Thalion](#): > > As long as the girl was not in custody, they _Miranda_ isn’t required and anything she says can be used. > > On the other hand, if she should have been Mirandized and wasn’t, then any leads she gave could be tainted and what they lead to could be suppressed (what the courts call “fruit of the poisonous tree”). That’s only with respect to her. She has no constitutional right to refuse to answer questions about someone else’s wrong doing which can then be excluded from trial. She can’t be forced to admit to things about her own conduct. What she says about what she saw someone else do is fair game. No standard of review disallows that: it’s not protected by patient-doctor, priest-penitent, or even husband-wife. Those only protect “discussions” not “I saw my wife barbecue the neighbor” type stuff. Besides which is the fact that no one is required to “Mirandized” when being asked about another’s conduct. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/16 "2009-06-24T17:57:54Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Being informed of your _Miranda_ rights is required when a person is subjected to a custodial interrogation, that is, when you are arrested and questioning is poised to begin. A person is in custody when “given [the circumstances surrounding the interrogation] . . . a reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” _Thompson v. Keohane_, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). _Miranda_ warnings are based on one’s present situation, not whether one will be a witness or not. Nevertheless, since the remedy for Fourth Amendment violation is typically suppression of evidence, innocent illegal search and seizure victims will have no real recourse. Although Section 1983 affords a civil remedy, state actors, backed by qualified immunity, have a very strong defense in those suits. > > Additionally, there are such creatures as the _Terry_ stop, predicated on reasonable suspicion rather than the probable cause that must back an arrest, does not require Mirandizing. A _Terry_ stop, the Court’s jurisprudence helpfully informs us, must necessarily be “brief.” > > Most people being interrogated do not know this backstory, as you point out. As criminal procedure is littered with pitfalls for suspects, it might seem that some sort of information could usefully be given to suspects to ensure that their rights are protected. This is the rationale for the holding in _Miranda_ (and why the Court calls it a “prophylactic rule”–it is designed to prevent constitutional abuses, but it itself is not a free-standing constitutional right). However, after _United States v. Drayton_ (where the Court declined to command police to inform those they wanted to search of their right to refuse the officer permission to search), it seems that _Miranda_ is the outer limit of prophylactic rules that the Court will constitutionalize. You neglect one important requirement: if you’re going to be questioned about your own conduct. No one is entitled to a reading of Miranda when they’re a.) in forced custody, and b.) being asked about someone else’s conduct. If they happen let slip that they broke laws while not being asked about it, that’s on them. But if the cops have no intention of questioning them about any illegal conduct they themselves have done, there’s no reason to “Mirandize” them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/17 "2009-06-24T18:17:35Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > I thought the Fifth Amendment protects you against _self-_ incrimination. So Mumbles could incriminate you all he wants. Right? Quite right. As the Court stated in _Alderman v. United States_, “[t]he established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.” 394 U.S. 165, 171-72 (1969). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/18 "2009-06-24T18:19:10Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > You neglect one important requirement: if you’re going to be questioned about your own conduct. No one is entitled to a reading of Miranda when they’re a.) in forced custody, and b.) being asked about someone else’s conduct. > > If they happen let slip that they broke laws while not being asked about it, that’s on them. But if the cops have no intention of questioning them about any illegal conduct they themselves have done, there’s no reason to “Mirandize” them. In other words don’t talk to the cops without a lawyer present. Period. Watch the following video for why not (two parts and some 45 minutes total but very enlightening and more than a little scary…worth watching). [Part 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related) [Part 2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE) ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/19 "2009-06-24T18:44:52Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > You neglect one important requirement: No, actually I didn’t. The reason I did not include that “requirement” is that it is not required under _Miranda_ or its progeny that the interrogating officer ask you about your conduct. So long as the circumstances of interrogation would lead a reasonable person to conclude that he or she is not a liberty to leave, beyond that level of curtailment present in a _Terry_ stop or a routine traffic stop (_Berkemer v. McCarty_. 468 U.S. 420 (1984)), _Miranda_ warnings must be provided before commencing questioning. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/20 "2009-06-24T18:48:08Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > Or in other words, don’t talk to the police. Ever. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In other words don’t talk to the cops without a lawyer present. Period. > > Watch the following video for why not (two parts and some 45 minutes total but very enlightening and more than a little scary…worth watching). > > [Part 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related) > [Part 2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE) Gotcha. So if someone kidnaps my 4 year old while I’m shopping at Target and drives off with her, I shouldn’t provide the license plate or description to the police until I’ve found an attorney to represent me. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766.md?page=2)