Why is it a crime to lie to police?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Tom_Tildrum

You only have the right to remain silent. Technically, you do not have the right to lie in this situation and could be charged for falsely claiming innocence. I have no idea whether that ever gets prosecuted, though, since presumably if they have enough to prove you guilty on this point, they have enough to convict you of whatever substantive charge you were lying about. One of the other Doper lawyers who deals directly with criminal law might know whether this is anything more than a theoretical point.

BROGAN v. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)

the “exculpatory no doctrine” was soundly rejected by the Supremes. I stand mistaken.

[Kobal2]

@Bear_Nenno

Why would you state something that is so completely wrong? Not to mention the fact that we are dealing with countless jurisdictions and countries on this board. If you want to make an outrageous claim like this, at least state which city and country you are referring to.

In the state of Florida, it is illegal to “materially lie” to a Police Officer. As it should be.

Yes, I’m afraid I was overly broad - it is usually illegal to provide false information directly pertaining to a crime, or deliberately misdirect the men investigating a crime, or waste the police’s time (e.g. bogus rape claims). That falls under obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, false reporting and so forth.

My answer was given on the assumption that the OP meant in situations when you aren’t the guilty party lying to get away with it, i.e. lying about things the police has no business asking you about and protecting your privacy. Maybe I’m too confident in the honesty of internet strangers in general and Dopers in particular

Lying about facts unrelated to a case or crime, however, wasn’t a crime that I knew of. Tom Tildrum set me straight on that point. Note that judgement calls, opinions or interpretation of facts can’t be construed as lies by the law, only factual answers - so there’s probably some leeway margin there. Still, when in doubt, clam up. You should always be in doubt.

@ChrisBooth12

So when I buy pot from an undercover I won’t get in trouble? Had he not been there said pot would not have been bought. I do not understand how things like this are not entrapment. Me walking up to a cop asking for blow is one thing, but having a cop ask me as I walk down the street if I want drugs is ok? I do not understand

Not an expert there, but AFAIK they can only offer you the pot, which isn’t entrapment : nobody’s making you decide to buy it. What they cannot do is badger or force you into buying it if you refuse or somesuch. Or sell/give you pot under false pretenses, then nab you for possession (“Excuse me, could you hold this bag for me for a sec ? Ha HA ! There’s pot in your bag, sir !”). That’s entrapment.

[Quercus]

@Kobal2

Lying about facts unrelated to a case or crime, however, wasn’t a crime that I knew of. Tom Tildrum set me straight on that point.

Note that the cite by Tom Tildrum was a federal statute about false statements to federal employees. Almost all police in the U.S. are municpal employees rather than federal, and lying to them would be covered (or not) by state laws.

Bear Nenno stated (without cite) that it’s illegal to lie to police in Florida. Other states may or may not have similar or slightly different laws.

[md2000]

AFAIK Martha Stweart was convicted of obstruction because she deleted evidence on her computer. The fact that she thought about it for a few hours, realized it was not the right move, and retyped it was apparently irrelvant.

They tried to nail her for perjury because her story conflicted with the secretary’s. They asserted that the secretary’s notes and her memory after reading those notes constituted two separate pieces of evidence necessary for a perjury conviction. AFAIK the judge tossed that argument out the window.

They never did nail her on insider trading because nobody ever admitted to doing anything against the rules. It was the coverup and the explanations that got her in trouble.

---

IANAL - misleading the police over any inestigation is obstruction of justice, if they can show it was deliberate not an accident or bad memory or whatever. Lying under oath is perjury. I have not heard of anyone being tried for lying to investigators about their own crime; it’s when a third party tries to jump in and steer police wrong (false alibi, incorrect info) that they may be charged. Don’t try to do a buddy any favours by lying.

However, tampering with physical evidence once you know the police are investigating is definitely a crime that anyone can be prosecuted for. I recall one case years ago where a phone hacker was arrested, then the police left him in the interrogation room with his Radio Shack autodialer. He removed and then replaced the batteries, thus deleting any preprogrammed codes. The cops obviously knew this was a cheap way to get him, they nailed him for obstruction for destroying evidence. I’m sure the police knew it was an easy conviction that way, and leverage to make him plead guilty to other charges.

there was one case where the feds tried to nail someone for lying to his own lawyers. The lawyers passed on their client’s statement to police, who then said that he was obstructing justice because he lied to his own lawyers knowing that they would pass that information to police. IIRC, that was tossed by the judge pretty much immediately. I suspect the prosecutors were reaching because they had nothing else to stick on him.

[rbroome]

@md2000

AFAIK Martha Stweart was convicted of obstruction because she deleted evidence on her computer. The fact that she thought about it for a few hours, realized it was not the right move, and retyped it was apparently irrelvant.

They tried to nail her for perjury because her story conflicted with the secretary’s. They asserted that the secretary’s notes and her memory after reading those notes constituted two separate pieces of evidence necessary for a perjury conviction. AFAIK the judge tossed that argument out the window.

They never did nail her on insider trading because nobody ever admitted to doing anything against the rules. It was the coverup and the explanations that got her in trouble.

---

IANAL - misleading the police over any inestigation is obstruction of justice, if they can show it was deliberate not an accident or bad memory or whatever. Lying under oath is perjury. I have not heard of anyone being tried for lying to investigators about their own crime; it’s when a third party tries to jump in and steer police wrong (false alibi, incorrect info) that they may be charged. Don’t try to do a buddy any favours by lying.

However, tampering with physical evidence once you know the police are investigating is definitely a crime that anyone can be prosecuted for. I recall one case years ago where a phone hacker was arrested, then the police left him in the interrogation room with his Radio Shack autodialer. He removed and then replaced the batteries, thus deleting any preprogrammed codes. The cops obviously knew this was a cheap way to get him, they nailed him for obstruction for destroying evidence. I’m sure the police knew it was an easy conviction that way, and leverage to make him plead guilty to other charges.

there was one case where the feds tried to nail someone for lying to his own lawyers. The lawyers passed on their client’s statement to police, who then said that he was obstructing justice because he lied to his own lawyers knowing that they would pass that information to police. IIRC, that was tossed by the judge pretty much immediately. I suspect the prosecutors were reaching because they had nothing else to stick on him.

According to news reports, Martha Steward was convicted of several charges and one of them is obstruction of justice by lying to investigators.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,598286,00.html

Martha Stewart Found Guilty