But don’t forget we’ll also be getting a bunch of legal experts explaining how if you talk to a cop, they’ll frame you for a crime. And somehow a cop can’t frame you if you don’t talk to them first.
Isn’t there a Public Safety exemption to Miranda? Don’t want to hijack the thread, so I’ll leave that for one of the criminal defense lawyers herein to do so.
Okay, here’s something I’ve asked once or twice before on these boards, and I’m not sure if anyone ever gave a clear answer:
Suppose I think I’m smart like this. Suppose I know, or think I know, that I don’t need to answer any questions that any cop asks me. Suppose I believe that this is true, whether I’ve actually been charged with a crime or not; and whether I’m actually suspected or not. Suppose I know, or think I know, that I simply don’t have to answer questions – whether I’ve been Mirandized or not, and whether I should have been Mirandized or not.
So suppose I choose not to pay all that money for a lawyer, and instead just try to sit through the interrogation all by my lonesome – and I do so by simply keeping my mouth shut. (Or more precisely, by responding to questions by explicitly saying that I choose not to answer their questions.)
Then what happens?
Nothing happens. Eventually the cops will get tired and will stop asking you questions.
Except . . .
In many jurisictions there’s a limited range of information which you are obliged to give the police, if asked - e.g. in some circumstances the law may require you to identify yourself to police. If the police are asking you questions within that class, and you refuse to answer, you’ll be charged.
Of course, the Constitution still prevails. If answering the question truthfully would incriminate you, you have the right to refuse to answer. But to avoid a conviction for refusing to answer, you’d have to explicitly take the fifth - i.e. not keep silent, but say that you decline to answer because the answer might incriminate you.
So answering a cop’s questions on the street at the scene of a crime, “Did you see what happened here?” is most likely fine.
Miranda Rights however = get a lawyer.
What if there was a murder in your neighborhood recently and you get a call asking you to come down to the station and answer some questions?
Always ask for a lawyer.
These statements require clarification. Miranda warnings are only required before custodial interrogations. If you are voluntarily speaking to police and free to leave, anything you say is fair game even in the absence of Miranda warnings. If you are handcuffed in a police station*, that’s different of course.
As for things you tell police officers, they are not inadmissible hearsay if they are incriminating. They are called admissions of party opponents and are always admissible assuming there is no Fifth Amendment violation (as nonhearsay under the federal rules and those of some states, and as a hearsay exception under the rules of other states.)
*or in some other “police dominated environment”.
That might be true. In general people want to be cooperative and I am sure many officers are great at encouraging people to talk when even it’s not in the interviewee’s best interest to talk. Again, I’m not sure that letting them dissemble is a good idea in those cases.
Yes. There’s a reason I didn’t mention idiots, for example. 
I’ve certainly read accounts of lawyers who should have known better making statements to the police that came back to bite them in the ass.
I think that’s a big part of it. Mr. Police Detective’s job is to gather enough evidence so that the district attorney can successfully prosecute an individual and as a general rule I assume people who make a living doing something are competent when it comes to their job. I like to think I’m a smart guy but if I actually committed a crime I think Mr. Police Detective is going to eventually figure out that I’m throwing bullshit his way. He’s going to spot inconsistent statements, notice where my story contradicts other evidence, and will eventually arrive at the damning truth eventually. The only smart movie is to avoid playing Mr. Police Detective’s game.
I could see that happening to me. I’ve contacted the police and I’ve talked to them when they asked me what happened because I have a vested interest in seeing that criminal activity in my neighborhood leads to arrests. I could certainly see being unaware that I was an actual suspect until I suddenly find myself in an interrogation. I’m not so arrogant to believe I can’t be fooled.
I think that’s a fair statement. However I do think a lot of people who talk to the police aren’t well educated and are unaware of their rights.
Wait, what ? Seriously ? That seems… abusable.
So an unscrupulous cop could come to the stand and say “Oh yes y’r’honor, he totally told us he was the one wot done it, but recanted once we cuffed him”, and that would stand ?
Well, yes, subject to certain caveats. First the judge has to determine that any confession was knowing and voluntary, or else the Fifth Amendment requires that it be excluded. Assuming it is admitted, the defense attorney can comment on the circumstances of the confession so the jury can weigh the confession appropriately.
More importantly, a defendant can never be convicted solely on the basis of an out-of-court confession. There must be some other evidence tending to show his guilt.
The police can do anything they want. No, it’s not ok. It’s very, very fucked-up. But police lie all the time. If you don’t know this, you don’t know much. Coerced confessions are routinely obtained, CSI labs often “provide” the missing evidence. Don’t believe the shit on tv crime dramas. It’s purely fiction and bears no similarity to how things are done in real life. Criminals are rank amateurs when compared to the boys and girls in blue. How do I know this ? Personal experience. As a poor working-class guy I’ve been fucked-over nine ways to Sunday. And I’m white; try to imagine how this affects people of color. Can’t do it ? Then you live in an ivory tower and intend to stay there. Come the revolution.
I was once told by a prosecutor that the cop who attended my trial was “just gonna’ lie” about the circumstances which led to my being ticketed (this was the most minor of the list of bullshit charges I’ve faced), so I may as well change my plea to guilty. That prosecutor is now a county judge. So, do police lie ? That cop was about to do so on the witness stand. It never had to happen; I changed my plea to guilty after being informed how blatantly corrupt even traffic court is. How can you tell when a cop’s lying ? His lips are moving.
You can’t know. He might have lied on the witness stand, or he might have lied about lying on the witness stand.
Yea, true. I don’t “know” anything, if I’m being truthful. But I’ve acquired a lot of skepticism based upon real life experience. This may not constitute knowing, but it’s the best model I can formulate. I can’t be sure I’m sitting here typing this, but…well, you know.
Nice to know so many Americans live in Mayberry. You know, the one on the back-lot at some Hollywood studio ?
Or common good might be lying to us about the cop lying on the witness stand. Or he might be lying about lying…
I think it’s surprising behavior from the prosecutor, given how few defendants ever lie.
It happens. But in my experience, it’s very rare. The police don’t really have much motive to lie – they get paid regardless of how the trial ends.
On the other hand, one person with a dash cam, one observer across the street with a cell phone, and the officer’s career is over. Why do you imagine the officer would risk it?
What if your gun was stolen last week and you figure the actual shooter wore gloves.
What do you mean “His career is over.” Copskillpeopleallthe time and get off scot free. Merely lying about what went on would end their career? I doubt it.
Proof of their lying under oath would make them virtually useless as witnesses in any future criminal trials.
In contrast, your first link involves the case of Jack Lamar Roberson. After being called to the home following a 911 call that reported Roberson was intoxicated, brandishing a knife, and saying he wanted to die, the officers were threatened by Roberson’s approach holding a knife. Although they ordered him to drop the knife, he refused. Shooting a person under those circumstances is not a violation of Georgia law, and so the shooting was found to be justified. Any future opportunities to serve as a witness in a criminal trial would not be hurt by this event.
Your second link refers to the case of Keith Vidal, shot when officers responded to a 911 call asking for police to help in dealing with a armed schizophrenic man threatening his mother. The detective who shot Vidal, Southport Police Department’s Bryon Vassey, was indicted by a grand jury for manslaughter. He is suspended from his job without pay, and if convicted will be fired, so he certainly is not getting off “scot free.”
Your third link refers to the shooting of Raymond Herisse in Miami. Herisse was driving recklessly and had hit other cars, including a police car, while refusing to stop. According to the police, they were acting to protect themselves from being hit by the car. While the investigation is not yet closed, the same sentiment applies: if the investigation concludes that the police were justified, any future opportunities to serve as a witness in a criminal trial would not be hurt by this event.
Your fourth link refers to the shooting death of nineteen year old Samantha Ramsey, who was ordered to stop her car by a deputy. Ramsay was leaving a “field party,” and refused to stop. The investigation is still going on, so I’m not sure why you can declare that no consequences will exist. The deputy says he was struck by her car, though, and as a general rule that justifies deadly force. If the investigation supports his version, any future opportunities to serve as a witness in a criminal trial would not be hurt by this event.
Your final link is about a lawsuit filed by Nancy Smith as the result of her son’s death during a drug arrest. Although she alleges that her son’s death is the result of a “sharp object,” being used in an attempt to retrieve the drugs supposedly swallowed by the teen in effort to avoid being arrested with them, the autopsy indicates that a drug overdose is equally possible. I am not sure why you believe this case supports your theory. Any future opportunities for the involved officers to serve as a witness in a criminal trial would not be hurt by this event.
That’s five links. Four showed nothing that would prevent an officer from testifying in future trials; one showed an officer charged and removed from duty.
Can you explain this variance between the offer of proof you made and what the links actually show?