# 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:** 2
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/21 "2009-06-24T18:53:55Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > 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. Or in my case, when I saw a burglar climb out a window I should have kept my mouth shut instead of speaking up while everything was fresh in my memory. Phew! I’m glad I didn’t go to jail for witnessing a crime! ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/22 "2009-06-24T18:54:31Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > 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. \ “of someone about his own conduct.” You misunderstand the decision it would seem. There’s nothing which requires me, say your local friendly cop, to notify you of your Miranda rights if I don’t plan on asking you about anything you might have done illegal. That I’ve already arrested you is of no moment. Your argument flies in the face of the constitution anyway, such that if I arrest you and ask you questions about someone who isn’t you and you give me answers, then that is perfectly admissible. If I arrest you, don’t Mirandize you and then ask you questions that are likely to incriminate yourself, then we have a problem. But I’m certainly free to arrest you, not Mirandize you and then you ask you questions about other people’s conducts without having run afoul of the constitution. You’re protected from being required to incriminate yourself; not other people. ---
**Author:** ![JonathanTheRed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JonathanTheRed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonathanTheRed)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/23 "2009-06-24T18:57:38Z")
Speaking of the _Miranda_ warning, I’ve always been confused about the part that goes “anything you say can _ **and will** _ be used against you.” It’s almost made me wish that I found myself in a situation where I was being read my rights, so when the officer was done, I could say something like, “I like turnips.” Let’s just see them _try_ to use that against me. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/24 "2009-06-24T18:58:34Z")
> [@JonathanTheRed](#): > > Speaking of the _Miranda_ warning, I’ve always been confused about the part that goes “anything you say can _ **and will** _ be used against you.” It’s almost made me wish that I found myself in a situation where I was being read my rights, so when the officer was done, I could say something like, “I like turnips.” Let’s just see them _try_ to use that against me. “Anything [incriminating] you say . . .” There, fixed. Of course, what if you’re being arrested for turnip molestation of some kind? ---
**Author:** ![JonathanTheRed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JonathanTheRed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonathanTheRed)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/25 "2009-06-24T19:13:18Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > “Anything [incriminating] you say . . .” There, fixed. No, not really. I’m sure that at least once during American history, a Mirandized suspect has said something incriminating which didn’t make its way into court. I just don’t see what “and will” adds to the warning. > [@](#): > > Of course, what if you’re being arrested for turnip molestation of some kind? Bitch was asking for it. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/26 "2009-06-24T19:19:37Z")
> [@JonathanTheRed](#): > > No, not really. I’m sure that at least once during American history, a Mirandized suspect has said something incriminating which didn’t make its way into court. I just don’t see what “and will” adds to the warning. > Bitch was asking for it. Yet another phrase not to use with the turnip police! Well, can and will have disparate meanings. Can means might be used against you. Will means likely will be. Sure, one’s _a fortiori_, but when has that stopped using such language in law? ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/27 "2009-06-24T19:27:40Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > 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. :rolleyes: Sorry you require my statement to be qualified. I think reporting a crime is normal and fine. Did you watch the video? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/28 "2009-06-24T19:38:10Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] Sorry you require my statement to be qualified. I think reporting a crime is normal and fine. [/QUOTE] Well, that seems a normal reaction when you give a bald, unqualified statement: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In other words don’t talk to the cops without a lawyer present. Period. So, contrary to your first statement, you agree that there are cases where it is appropriate to talk to the cops without a lawyer present. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/29 "2009-06-24T19:40:59Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Well, that seems a normal reaction when you give a bald, unqualified statement: > > So, contrary to your first statement, you agree that there are cases where it is appropriate to talk to the cops without a lawyer present. Fine. Bad language choice on my part. Happy? Video is still worth watching though and serves as a cautionary lesson if you are ever being questioned by the police. ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/30 "2009-06-24T19:47:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Sorry you require my statement to be qualified. I think reporting a crime is normal and fine. > > Did you watch the video? Watching it now. And since both the OP and another poster brought up the concept of being a witness to a crime, then yeah, you should have qualified it with “If you think you may be a suspect…” Catching criminals is a good thing. If a policeman knocked on my door, and told me that my neighbor had been robbed and beaten in his house, did I see anything out of the ordinary, I’d go ahead and tell him there was a blue chevy I’ve never seen before parked in front of his house that morning. I think the infinitesmal risk of that somehow coming back to haunt me is worth the value the info may have for the police. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/31 "2009-06-24T20:07:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Did you watch the video? No. It’s like two half-hour episodes! (Not to mention the guy is from the detestable Regent Bible “College”) Can you give us an executive summary? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/32 "2009-06-24T20:16:16Z")
Here is a previous thread we did on a related topic: [Being Questioned by the Police and Unrelated Crimes](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=461325) ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/33 "2009-06-24T20:21:58Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > No. It’s like two half-hour episodes! (Not to mention the guy is from the detestable Regent Bible “College”) Can you give us an executive summary? The second video the guy brings on a police officer practiced in interrogations and he confirms the guy in the first video. The upshot is the police are good at what they do, they are free to play all sorts of tricks and even if you say things that you are sure help you they can often be used against you later. In short, exercise your rights and lawyer up and till then shut yer trap. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/34 "2009-06-24T20:31:14Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > \ “of someone about his own conduct.” > > You misunderstand the decision it would seem. There’s nothing which requires me, say your local friendly cop, to notify you of your Miranda rights if I don’t plan on asking you about anything you might have done illegal. That I’ve already arrested you is of no moment. > > Your argument flies in the face of the constitution anyway, such that if I arrest you and ask you questions about someone who isn’t you and you give me answers, then that is perfectly admissible. If I arrest you, don’t Mirandize you and then ask you questions that are likely to incriminate yourself, then we have a problem. But I’m certainly free to arrest you, not Mirandize you and then you ask you questions about other people’s conducts without having run afoul of the constitution. You’re protected from being required to incriminate yourself; not other people. I’m afraid you’re just fucking wrong. Would you like the board’s other lawyers to weigh in on the question? ---
**Author:** ![Telcontar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Telcontar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telcontar)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/35 "2009-06-24T20:34:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The second video the guy brings on a police officer practiced in interrogations and he confirms the guy in the first video. > > The upshot is the police are good at what they do, they are free to play all sorts of tricks and even if you say things that you are sure help you they can often be used against you later. > > In short, exercise your rights and lawyer up and till then shut yer trap. It’s a fair summary of the video and the videos are very good for what they are (i have some outside knowledge in this area). The key advice is not to never talk to the police without a lawyer but rather to never talk to the police without a lawyer IF YOU ARE OR COULD BE A SUSPECT. An interrogation qua interrogation is guilt presumptive; they want a confession. this is distinct from questioning, in which they want information. The trick is knowing when to say “wait, they think i did it! Lawyer!”. Never try to convince a cop you didn’t do it from inside an interrogation room. ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/36 "2009-06-24T20:48:15Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I’m afraid you’re just fucking wrong. Would you like the board’s other lawyers to weigh in on the question? I don’t think it actually is wrong. I break into your house to steal your TV. While making my escape, I witness you strangling your mother-in-law. **ashman** arrests me for burglary when he catches me running down the street with your TV. While I’m sitting handcuffed in his patrol car, he asks; “Hey, did you see **Kimmy\_Gibbler** murder anyone?” and I answer: “Why, yes! Yes, I did see Kimmy kill!” **ashman** has not yet Mirandized me, but my statements can still be used against _you_ at _your_ trial. While I’m sitting there, arrested and in his custody, he can ask me all about what I saw _you_ do. He just has to Mirandize me before he asks me questions about _me_ and my shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/37 "2009-06-24T20:57:54Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I’m afraid you’re just fucking wrong. Would you like the board’s other lawyers to weigh in on the question? I’ll weigh in. As a lawyer: **ashman165** , there is not suspect/not a suspect distinction in the Miranda cases. As far as the incriminates you/incriminates someone else distinction, \*Miranda \*only protects a person charged with a crime. So to some extent, you are correct, but I think you are overgeneralizing. Suppose, for example, that the police question you about x’s conduct, and during the interview you disclose information that incriminates you or inadvertently confess to a different crime. If x is charged with a crime, x can’t complain about your un-Mirandized statements. But if you were later charged, the admission of that evidence could violate _Miranda_ if: 1. You were in _custody_; 2. You were _interrogated_; 3. You weren’t given the Miranda warnings. Each of the italicized terms has been defined specifically by the courts. As a moderator: [modding] **Kimmy** , I’d appreciate it if you’d be a tiny bit less snarky in this thread. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator [/modding] ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/38 "2009-06-24T21:07:14Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Suppose, for example, that the police question you about x’s conduct, and during the interview you disclose information that incriminates you or inadvertently confess to a different crime. If x is charged with a crime, x can’t complain about your un-Mirandized statements. But if you were later charged, the admission of that evidence could violate _Miranda_ if: > > 1. You were in _custody_; > 2. You were _interrogated_; > 3. You weren’t given the Miranda warnings. So in my example, if Arresting Officer **Ashman** did NOT Mirandize me and asked “Did you see **Kimmy** kill?” and my answer was “Yes, after I broke in through the living room window, I saw Kimmy strangling some lady in the kitchen.” My un-Mirandized confession about breaking in through the living room window would be inadmissible at my own trial, but witnessing the murder could be entered into evidence at Kimmy’s trial. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/39 "2009-06-24T21:13:33Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > I don’t think it actually is wrong. > > I break into your house to steal your TV. While making my escape, I witness you strangling your mother-in-law. **ashman** arrests me for burglary when he catches me running down the street with your TV. While I’m sitting handcuffed in his patrol car, he asks; “Hey, did you see **Kimmy\_Gibbler** murder anyone?” and I answer: “Why, yes! Yes, I did see Kimmy kill!” > > **ashman** has not yet Mirandized me, but my statements can still be used against _you_ at _your_ trial. While I’m sitting there, arrested and in his custody, he can ask me all about what I saw _you_ do. > > He just has to Mirandize me before he asks me questions about _me_ and my shenanigans. This is correct. I would not call it a _Miranda_ requirement, but a consequence of our rules concerning standing and the fact the remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is usually limited to suppression. The officer can do this not because the law distinguishes between questions regarding the interrogated’s conduct and others’ conduct, but rather because I have no standing to challenge it and you have no remedy available. I will actually refine that last sentence a bit. After _Missouri v. Seibert_ (where the court ended the practice of interrogating un-Mirandized suspects, getting a confession, Mirandizing them, and then getting the confession again), I would say you might have a good shot of getting your pre- and post-warning statements suppressed by contending that the cops were trying to engage in an impermissible _Seibert_ two-step. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766/40 "2009-06-24T21:22:10Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > So in my example, if Arresting Officer **Ashman** did NOT Mirandize me and asked “Did you see **Kimmy** kill?” and my answer was “Yes, after I broke in through the living room window, I saw Kimmy strangling some lady in the kitchen.” My un-Mirandized confession about breaking in through the living room window would be inadmissible at my own trial, but witnessing the murder could be entered into evidence at Kimmy’s trial. Bingo. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-tips-leads-from-non-lawered-interrogations/500766.md?page=3)