Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
If there is no cop-bashing on-going then why the defense? It takes two to tango.
If there is no cop-bashing on-going then why the defense? It takes two to tango.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Rights - Law professor speaks on exercising 5th amend rights
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Liko81
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Important points:
- You do not "need" the contents of your pockets in police custody.If you are arrested, you are searched and your pockets emptied.Those effectsgo into a manila envelope until you and the cops get to the police station. Those effects are now evidence, andifthe police plan to charge you, youwill not see the recorder or hear any recording it made until discovery, and it will only cover your initial encounter with the police up until the recorder is found and turned off. From that moment on the only recording available is that provided by the police.
- Off-site recording? Forget it. The POLICE gather evidence. If you recorded a phone conversation using your answering machine, congratulations, you have a lovely little microcassette, the contents of which will NEVER be heard in court unless the POLICE collect it from the player. Same with a digital recordingmade from your pocket,dumped to a secure server. Why? Because unless you can prove it wasn't tampered with from the moment that conversation occurredto the time the motion to suppress is heard, the prosecution's motion to suppress will be granted, every time. That recording must also be timestamped, and tape answering machines don't timestamp unless the time is mentioned on the recording. Otherwise the conversation could have happened anywhere at any time in the timeline of the investigation and questioning.
- DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. You are required, when under arrest (lawful or not in some states including Texas) to provide identifying information. You are required, arrested or detained, to ensure that all identifying information given is truthful. Beyond that, keep your mouth shut. Quoting law reveals that you do know the law. If they can provide evidence to show that you did in fact break the law you quote,you are losing sympathy points with the judge and jury. Any statement you make may mesh with another statement, as the Prof shows, to complete the puzzle.
- The police are allowed to lie. They can tell you they have you committing the crime on tape, and show you the cassette. In reality the cassette is blank and they are bluffing in the hopes you'll fold. Call the bluff. A request to have them show you the evidence is not an incriminating statement, as long as the words out of your mouth are "please allow me to viewthe evidence you have collected". If they refuse, your mouth is shut beyond that request.
- DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. Remember one of Officer Bruch's tactics? He gives the Miranda warning, then proceeds to tell the suspect what he knows, and HE IS ALLOWED TO LIE. He THEN asks if the suspect wishes to talk. Do not give him the opportunity. Immediately after the Miranda warning, when he starts to say "now let me tell you what I know", your line is "I do not wish to talk to youor to be interviewed without first speaking with my lawyer". He must stop talking right there, otherwise he is in violation of the very warning he just gave you, ON TAPE.
- DO NOT TALK WHILE IN YOUR CELL. While in the holding pen/drunk tank/your holding cell, you have the opportunity to speak with other occupants of the cell. DO NOT EXERCISE IT. The police put informants in cell blocks, and can make deals with real suspects to testify against you. You must assume that anything you say may be used against you, whether you are in the presence of a uniformed officer or not.
- Recordings can be used against you. *dons flame suit* Remember that pocket voice recorder? It is now in police custody, and its contents can be entered as evidence against you if the police hear something they like. THAT RECORDING CAN BE ANYWHERE ON THE DEVICE; if the police can argue the relevance of ANY snippet of conversation stored on the device it's theirs.
- DO NOT TALK TO POLICE.
Doug Huffman wrote:
Important points:
- You do not "need" the contents of your pockets in police custody.If you are arrested, you are searched and your pockets emptied.Those effectsgo into a manila envelope until you and the cops get to the police station. Those effects are now evidence, andifthe police plan to charge you, youwill not see the recorder or hear any recording it made until discovery, and it will only cover your initial encounter with the police up until the recorder is found and turned off. From that moment on the only recording available is that provided by the police.
- Off-site recording? Forget it. The POLICE gather evidence. If you recorded a phone conversation using your answering machine, congratulations, you have a lovely little microcassette, the contents of which will NEVER be heard in court unless the POLICE collect it from the player. Same with a digital recordingmade from your pocket,dumped to a secure server. Why? Because unless you can prove it wasn't tampered with from the moment that conversation occurredto the time the motion to suppress is heard, the prosecution's motion to suppress will be granted, every time. That recording must also be timestamped, and tape answering machines don't timestamp unless the time is mentioned on the recording. Otherwise the conversation could have happened anywhere at any time in the timeline of the investigation and questioning.
- DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. You are required, when under arrest (lawful or not in some states including Texas) to provide identifying information. You are required, arrested or detained, to ensure that all identifying information given is truthful. Beyond that, keep your mouth shut. Quoting law reveals that you do know the law. If they can provide evidence to show that you did in fact break the law you quote,you are losing sympathy points with the judge and jury. Any statement you make may mesh with another statement, as the Prof shows, to complete the puzzle.
- The police are allowed to lie. They can tell you they have you committing the crime on tape, and show you the cassette. In reality the cassette is blank and they are bluffing in the hopes you'll fold. Call the bluff. A request to have them show you the evidence is not an incriminating statement, as long as the words out of your mouth are "please allow me to viewthe evidence you have collected". If they refuse, your mouth is shut beyond that request.
- DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. Remember one of Officer Bruch's tactics? He gives the Miranda warning, then proceeds to tell the suspect what he knows, and HE IS ALLOWED TO LIE. He THEN asks if the suspect wishes to talk. Do not give him the opportunity. Immediately after the Miranda warning, when he starts to say "now let me tell you what I know", your line is "I do not wish to talk to youor to be interviewed without first speaking with my lawyer". He must stop talking right there, otherwise he is in violation of the very warning he just gave you, ON TAPE.
- DO NOT TALK WHILE IN YOUR CELL. While in the holding pen/drunk tank/your holding cell, you have the opportunity to speak with other occupants of the cell. DO NOT EXERCISE IT. The police put informants in cell blocks, and can make deals with real suspects to testify against you. You must assume that anything you say may be used against you, whether you are in the presence of a uniformed officer or not.
- Recordings can be used against you. *dons flame suit* Remember that pocket voice recorder? It is now in police custody, and its contents can be entered as evidence against you if the police hear something they like. THAT RECORDING CAN BE ANYWHERE ON THE DEVICE; if the police can argue the relevance of ANY snippet of conversation stored on the device it's theirs.
- DO NOT TALK TO POLICE.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
It is sad that the world has come to this. It is very sad that any citizen would be afraid to have an honest conversation with a police officer unless they intentionally or knowingly violated the law.
I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum a while back. This is what happens when a basically citizen function becomes overly professionalized. Law enforcement officers at one time were Peace Officers. Their job was to keep the peace, not to necessarily enforce whatever laws the politicians pulled out of their collective rears. We had constables and sheriffs and public safety officers, etc. Now they are all law enforcement officers and the law has become a higher calling than the peace. The peace allows the citizens to function in their lives and conduct commerce and recreation without threat, danger or undo interference, in other words, peacefully. The law as now used allows the government to perpetuate and retain control over the citizens and enforce it's will where it desires in the manner it chooses.
We took a wrong turn somewhere.
It is sad that the world has come to this. It is very sad that any citizen would be afraid to have an honest conversation with a police officer unless they intentionally or knowingly violated the law.
I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum a while back. This is what happens when a basically citizen function becomes overly professionalized. Law enforcement officers at one time were Peace Officers. Their job was to keep the peace, not to necessarily enforce whatever laws the politicians pulled out of their collective rears. We had constables and sheriffs and public safety officers, etc. Now they are all law enforcement officers and the law has become a higher calling than the peace. The peace allows the citizens to function in their lives and conduct commerce and recreation without threat, danger or undo interference, in other words, peacefully. The law as now used allows the government to perpetuate and retain control over the citizens and enforce it's will where it desires in the manner it chooses.
We took a wrong turn somewhere.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
Deep diver,
THANK YOU for displaying some basic common sense, something sorely lacking both on this site and in the world in general.
Yep, we no longer have "peace" officers, we now have "law enforcement" officers. Their goal in life is to enforce whatever oozes out of the state legislatures, the peace be damned.
No, "we" didn't take a wrong turn, "we" were hijacked. Last time I checked, I couldn't find a single oppressive government/tyrant who voluntarily restored the liberties of the people, quite the opposite.
Deep diver,
THANK YOU for displaying some basic common sense, something sorely lacking both on this site and in the world in general.
Yep, we no longer have "peace" officers, we now have "law enforcement" officers. Their goal in life is to enforce whatever oozes out of the state legislatures, the peace be damned.
No, "we" didn't take a wrong turn, "we" were hijacked. Last time I checked, I couldn't find a single oppressive government/tyrant who voluntarily restored the liberties of the people, quite the opposite.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Very interesting information. As you probably know, it is difficult to gauge the correct emotions of a poster through a forum but it appeared that you were boastful and proudabout your ability to lie to gain confessions. I think the general public thinks highly of police officers and considers them to be of high integrity and ethical standards, so I think this would be somewhat surprising to some.. I guess it just confirms the original post that people should plead the fifth as much as they can.
I think you can probablysee how this may come across negatively to many people hereand inthe public.
Thanks for taking the time to respond LEO 229.
LEO 229 wrote:
Very interesting information. As you probably know, it is difficult to gauge the correct emotions of a poster through a forum but it appeared that you were boastful and proudabout your ability to lie to gain confessions. I think the general public thinks highly of police officers and considers them to be of high integrity and ethical standards, so I think this would be somewhat surprising to some.. I guess it just confirms the original post that people should plead the fifth as much as they can.
I think you can probablysee how this may come across negatively to many people hereand inthe public.
Thanks for taking the time to respond LEO 229.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I wonder if it's made by the same company making the crystal balls that tell casual gun owners when they're going to need a gun.
And what's so bad about letting the "bad guy" walk out if police have nothing on him? Doesn't it go something like... innocent until proven guilty?
If we were interested in keeping things "fair" between police and suspects, we could start by allowing citizens 24 hours after being notified of a search warrant's being issued, before the police are allowed to begin their search.
Being able to abuse power to psychologically manipulate citizens into confessing or giving up "incriminating" information is unethical, regardless of legality.
LEO 229 wrote:
So, now, where did you get this magic crystal ball that tells you who is a "bad guy" and who isn't?
I wonder if it's made by the same company making the crystal balls that tell casual gun owners when they're going to need a gun.
And what's so bad about letting the "bad guy" walk out if police have nothing on him? Doesn't it go something like... innocent until proven guilty?
If we were interested in keeping things "fair" between police and suspects, we could start by allowing citizens 24 hours after being notified of a search warrant's being issued, before the police are allowed to begin their search.
Being able to abuse power to psychologically manipulate citizens into confessing or giving up "incriminating" information is unethical, regardless of legality.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
I'm about 2/3 through reading Miranda vs Arizona.
Everybody should read this. It addresses or undercuts the problems giving rise to most of the concerns expressed in the recent posts. The justices see the problem from several angles and handle them. They thoroughly address the psychological angle.
Its lengthy, so I can't post ithere.It is completely worth the time to read.
http://tinyurl.com/5xd2gc
imperialism2024 wrote:
I'm about 2/3 through reading Miranda vs Arizona.
Everybody should read this. It addresses or undercuts the problems giving rise to most of the concerns expressed in the recent posts. The justices see the problem from several angles and handle them. They thoroughly address the psychological angle.
Its lengthy, so I can't post ithere.It is completely worth the time to read.
http://tinyurl.com/5xd2gc
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
You are the guy who will agree to have a fist fight with a guy and think it will be a clean fight. Then....after he has kicked you in the ball sack, punched you in the mouth with brass knuckles, and stabbed you with an ice pick you will call foul and how scream about howit was not fair. :lol:
When it comes to the police interview.... both parties go in knowing they can lie their ass off. This is a fair fight of the minds. Each person can decide to lie or be truthful.
How do you tell who is the bad guy? There are times when it is rather obvious. The victim points him out or you catch him leaving the scene of the crime described exactly as the victim stated.
There are times when you do not know who the bad guy is. And this is where the interview can help you decide. If the story they givecan be backed up... they are off the hook. But if the story falls apart... you know you may be on the right track.
I had a case where some money turned up missing. It was one of three people.
I interviewed first person and the story was solid and consistent. EXCLUDED!!
I interviewed the second and the story was so-so and I made her cry when I accused her of stealing. Not proud of it.. but it happened. Not excluded but not likely that she did it.
I interviewed the last person and I knew I had the right guy!! Gave off all the clues to tell me he was dirty!! And he was!!
Set him up for the polygraph and he did not show up! Wonder why!! :lol:
He is in prison now on unrelated charges.
EDIT: And search warrants. Do you realize how stupid it is to warn someone that you are going to search their house?
If I am going to search for child porn on your computer tomorrow afternoon you will just remove the hard drive or computer so I will not get it. The whole idea is to be sure that what I am after is going to be there the day I visit.
imperialism2024 wrote:
You are the guy who will agree to have a fist fight with a guy and think it will be a clean fight. Then....after he has kicked you in the ball sack, punched you in the mouth with brass knuckles, and stabbed you with an ice pick you will call foul and how scream about howit was not fair. :lol:
When it comes to the police interview.... both parties go in knowing they can lie their ass off. This is a fair fight of the minds. Each person can decide to lie or be truthful.
How do you tell who is the bad guy? There are times when it is rather obvious. The victim points him out or you catch him leaving the scene of the crime described exactly as the victim stated.
There are times when you do not know who the bad guy is. And this is where the interview can help you decide. If the story they givecan be backed up... they are off the hook. But if the story falls apart... you know you may be on the right track.
I had a case where some money turned up missing. It was one of three people.
I interviewed first person and the story was solid and consistent. EXCLUDED!!
I interviewed the second and the story was so-so and I made her cry when I accused her of stealing. Not proud of it.. but it happened. Not excluded but not likely that she did it.
I interviewed the last person and I knew I had the right guy!! Gave off all the clues to tell me he was dirty!! And he was!!
Set him up for the polygraph and he did not show up! Wonder why!! :lol:
He is in prison now on unrelated charges.
EDIT: And search warrants. Do you realize how stupid it is to warn someone that you are going to search their house?
If I am going to search for child porn on your computer tomorrow afternoon you will just remove the hard drive or computer so I will not get it. The whole idea is to be sure that what I am after is going to be there the day I visit.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Then there's the issue of abuse of power. If a suspect lies, his lies effectively have very little power behind them. On the other hand, when an interrogator lies, his lies are backed by the power of the entire United States' government. A lying suspect is abusing the trust in himself... this may be an inconvenience in an investigation, but the investigators have little to lose. A lying investogator is abusing the trust in government, and the suspect has considerably more at stake when he can't trust that government.
As for being able to determine a "bad person"... well... I'll just leave that one alone.
As for search warrants, it certainly is ridiculous to give advance warning. I brought it up to compare it to arbitrary arrest and detention. I take issue with arresting someone the police have a hunch might be involved in a crime, and then fishing for sufficient evidence to prove the hunch. If we want to be "fair", then citizens should have as much time to dispose of evidence as the police have to come up with evidence.
LEO 229 wrote:
Here's the problem: You look at police interviews/interrogations as a fight, so to speak. Argument, debate, whatever you want to call it. And if that were the case, then I would agree with what you are saying. However, that isn't how it works... or isn't how it should work. The police are to find evidence, come up with a suspect, and then present that evidence to an impartial judge or jury to prove the suspect is guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I look at it as an expedition on the part of the police... not a battle. Yes, it can be difficult if a suspect lies, but it's not the responsibility of him or any other citizen to make things easier. To try to sum it up, investigations are investigations, not a battle of wits.
Then there's the issue of abuse of power. If a suspect lies, his lies effectively have very little power behind them. On the other hand, when an interrogator lies, his lies are backed by the power of the entire United States' government. A lying suspect is abusing the trust in himself... this may be an inconvenience in an investigation, but the investigators have little to lose. A lying investogator is abusing the trust in government, and the suspect has considerably more at stake when he can't trust that government.
As for being able to determine a "bad person"... well... I'll just leave that one alone.
As for search warrants, it certainly is ridiculous to give advance warning. I brought it up to compare it to arbitrary arrest and detention. I take issue with arresting someone the police have a hunch might be involved in a crime, and then fishing for sufficient evidence to prove the hunch. If we want to be "fair", then citizens should have as much time to dispose of evidence as the police have to come up with evidence.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
I read the decision a few years ago and find it quite interesting and enlightening and also recommend it to everyone. I may even re-read it to refresh my memory on some points.
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
You cannot possibly solve many crimes without interviews. Not all interviews are filled with lies on both sides.. it is a search for the truth and facts as related to the case. Often times an interview is so you can exclude someone.
There are times when you must lie to get the person to just come clean. Keeping in mind he has his 5th amendments rights not to say a damn thing. And if he is arrested he also has his Miranda rights advising that everything he says can be used against him.
So the discussion between the cop and the person will be done so voluntarily. There are no whips, chains, thumb screws, or other implements of torture like in other countries. Criminals think they can snowball the cop but he does not understand that the cop has years of training and experience in detecting deception and lies.
Talking to someone of telling them a lie is no abuse of power. I am not sure how you can even see it that way. Keeping in mind that the guy does not need to talk and if it is a lie.. it is not going to be used in court or by the state. A suspect telling a lie is not losing a thing. He is there for a reason and it is expected that he will lie.
The courts have ruled that the police can lie during an interview. How can there be an abuse if it has been ruled on and found to be allowed?
imperialism2024 wrote:
OK, let me just say that you have a warped view on how the system should work. :lol:
You cannot possibly solve many crimes without interviews. Not all interviews are filled with lies on both sides.. it is a search for the truth and facts as related to the case. Often times an interview is so you can exclude someone.
There are times when you must lie to get the person to just come clean. Keeping in mind he has his 5th amendments rights not to say a damn thing. And if he is arrested he also has his Miranda rights advising that everything he says can be used against him.
So the discussion between the cop and the person will be done so voluntarily. There are no whips, chains, thumb screws, or other implements of torture like in other countries. Criminals think they can snowball the cop but he does not understand that the cop has years of training and experience in detecting deception and lies.
Talking to someone of telling them a lie is no abuse of power. I am not sure how you can even see it that way. Keeping in mind that the guy does not need to talk and if it is a lie.. it is not going to be used in court or by the state. A suspect telling a lie is not losing a thing. He is there for a reason and it is expected that he will lie.
The courts have ruled that the police can lie during an interview. How can there be an abuse if it has been ruled on and found to be allowed?
imported post
Polygraphs were mentioned. Don't ever submit to one. They are not evidentiary, and exculpatory results will be dismissed on that basis, or deemed "inconclusive." A "positive" indication of lyingwill only serve to confirm the police in their belief that you're a skell, or involved in some way in whatever they're investigating. It will not do you any good to take -or even "pass" -one, and it may help them indirectly in making a case against you if you "fail." There are very few circumstances where an employer is justified in asking an employee to take one (check out those employee rights posters in the break room some time), but nobody has to submit to a law enforcement request for a polygraph.
-ljp
Polygraphs were mentioned. Don't ever submit to one. They are not evidentiary, and exculpatory results will be dismissed on that basis, or deemed "inconclusive." A "positive" indication of lyingwill only serve to confirm the police in their belief that you're a skell, or involved in some way in whatever they're investigating. It will not do you any good to take -or even "pass" -one, and it may help them indirectly in making a case against you if you "fail." There are very few circumstances where an employer is justified in asking an employee to take one (check out those employee rights posters in the break room some time), but nobody has to submit to a law enforcement request for a polygraph.
-ljp
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Just curious LEO, when you have me in the interrogation room and I continue to refuse to speak, answer any questions, or respond to any threats, warnings, deals, etc. what can I expect?
How long do I have to sit and listen to a pissed off detective rant and rave because I refuse to talk to him/her? How long before I get to speak with an attorney as I originally request? Will I be able to use the restroom when necessary or will that be used as a torture device to get me to agree to whatever is proposed? What if I decide I will not piss my pants and instead pee in the corner and accept a minor charge for that? Will I be fed if your detectives become stubborn and keep me in the interrogation room for 6hrs, 8hrs, 12hrs?
How much abuse is 'allowed' when the suspect refuses to cooperate at all?
(No agenda here, really just curious as I've never been in this situation)
Just curious LEO, when you have me in the interrogation room and I continue to refuse to speak, answer any questions, or respond to any threats, warnings, deals, etc. what can I expect?
How long do I have to sit and listen to a pissed off detective rant and rave because I refuse to talk to him/her? How long before I get to speak with an attorney as I originally request? Will I be able to use the restroom when necessary or will that be used as a torture device to get me to agree to whatever is proposed? What if I decide I will not piss my pants and instead pee in the corner and accept a minor charge for that? Will I be fed if your detectives become stubborn and keep me in the interrogation room for 6hrs, 8hrs, 12hrs?
How much abuse is 'allowed' when the suspect refuses to cooperate at all?
(No agenda here, really just curious as I've never been in this situation)
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Some interviews are done on the street and nearthe scene of the crime. These are just to get an idea of who could be a good suspect and to exclude people. You are always free to say nothing and walk away.
If there is evidence that points to a person that could be a good suspect or they need to be excluded you interview them back at the station.
You both enter a room where there are no distractions. This is necessary because a guilty person who is wanting to appear to be cooperative could otherwise create reasons to avoid the question or take a moment to craft a good liebyfiddling with stuff or speaking with people.
If you need to use the bathroom you would obviously be allowed to do so. This is a basic human need and you would not be refused.
You can either tell your story or remain silent. There is no "abuse" that will happen and nobody will cause you any physical harm. If you advise you have nothing to say... you would not be there long.
But this would be your only chance to show you are not the person the police should be looking for. If there was enough evidence to charge you with a crime and you refuse to cooperate.. you couldbe arrested and charged.
Most of the time... prior to your being interviewed you have already been investigated as must as possible. The cop knows all the details available but need to give you a chance to explain away some things that may point to you as being responsible.
So if it "looks" like you did it and there was not other person to go after..... your refusal would not look good and appear that you have something to hide. Sure... you have the right to say nothing but this will not look good as people who have committed a crime normally take this option.
Sure.. maybe you could prove in court that you were not responsible for the crime..... but now you get to pay for bail, an attorney, and take time off from work to go to court. You also get an entry in your criminal history. All this because you decided to say nothing. :uhoh:
The cop would take you to a magistrate and if a warrant was issued based on his testimony and he made an attempt to exclude you... he is in the clear!!
Not everyone interviewed is a suspect.
Keep in mind that in court..... the defendant's lawyer will try to point out that the police did not interview everyone and that someone else could be responsible. They can even say John Doe had more motive to do it than you. But the police could have already interviewed John Doe and determined that he had a solid alibi proving he could NOT have done it.
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
It depends on the situation....
Some interviews are done on the street and nearthe scene of the crime. These are just to get an idea of who could be a good suspect and to exclude people. You are always free to say nothing and walk away.
If there is evidence that points to a person that could be a good suspect or they need to be excluded you interview them back at the station.
You both enter a room where there are no distractions. This is necessary because a guilty person who is wanting to appear to be cooperative could otherwise create reasons to avoid the question or take a moment to craft a good liebyfiddling with stuff or speaking with people.
If you need to use the bathroom you would obviously be allowed to do so. This is a basic human need and you would not be refused.
You can either tell your story or remain silent. There is no "abuse" that will happen and nobody will cause you any physical harm. If you advise you have nothing to say... you would not be there long.
But this would be your only chance to show you are not the person the police should be looking for. If there was enough evidence to charge you with a crime and you refuse to cooperate.. you couldbe arrested and charged.
Most of the time... prior to your being interviewed you have already been investigated as must as possible. The cop knows all the details available but need to give you a chance to explain away some things that may point to you as being responsible.
So if it "looks" like you did it and there was not other person to go after..... your refusal would not look good and appear that you have something to hide. Sure... you have the right to say nothing but this will not look good as people who have committed a crime normally take this option.
Sure.. maybe you could prove in court that you were not responsible for the crime..... but now you get to pay for bail, an attorney, and take time off from work to go to court. You also get an entry in your criminal history. All this because you decided to say nothing. :uhoh:
The cop would take you to a magistrate and if a warrant was issued based on his testimony and he made an attempt to exclude you... he is in the clear!!
Not everyone interviewed is a suspect.
Keep in mind that in court..... the defendant's lawyer will try to point out that the police did not interview everyone and that someone else could be responsible. They can even say John Doe had more motive to do it than you. But the police could have already interviewed John Doe and determined that he had a solid alibi proving he could NOT have done it.
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Fair enough. Thanks for your POV. I guess I just watched too many bad movies.
But it sounds like you are telling me I would be pretty much screwed for refusing to talk as I will be assumed guilty and as long asa magistrate agrees, that would be it. This does not jive with what the attorney in the video discussed. I guess it depends on the POV of the speaker on this issue, as well as many others.
I think I'll still take my chances by saying nothing. It would be a nightmare to begin with and the stress level of trying to talk your way out of something you didn't do would suck. At least I could blame my attorney if wrongly convicted, but would have no one to blame but myself for trying to be helpful but being misunderstood/tricked/just plain stupid. Just my $1.52 (tax included).
Fair enough. Thanks for your POV. I guess I just watched too many bad movies.
But it sounds like you are telling me I would be pretty much screwed for refusing to talk as I will be assumed guilty and as long asa magistrate agrees, that would be it. This does not jive with what the attorney in the video discussed. I guess it depends on the POV of the speaker on this issue, as well as many others.
I think I'll still take my chances by saying nothing. It would be a nightmare to begin with and the stress level of trying to talk your way out of something you didn't do would suck. At least I could blame my attorney if wrongly convicted, but would have no one to blame but myself for trying to be helpful but being misunderstood/tricked/just plain stupid. Just my $1.52 (tax included).
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Every one of these questions is answered in Miranda vs Arizona. Here is a link:
http://tinyurl.com/3rjry3
These excerpts are removed from their context. Be very careful what you add or subtract regarding meaning:
...If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the [p445] process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning...
...Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him...
...An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer. While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one, his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given...
...If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present...
From a police manual quoted within the opinion: ...interrogate for a spell of several hours, pausing only for the subject's necessities in acknowledgment of the need to avoid a charge of duress that can be technically substantiated...
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Every one of these questions is answered in Miranda vs Arizona. Here is a link:
http://tinyurl.com/3rjry3
These excerpts are removed from their context. Be very careful what you add or subtract regarding meaning:
...If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the [p445] process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning...
...Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him...
...An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer. While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one, his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given...
...If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present...
From a police manual quoted within the opinion: ...interrogate for a spell of several hours, pausing only for the subject's necessities in acknowledgment of the need to avoid a charge of duress that can be technically substantiated...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
This is covered in Miranda vs Arizona. See the link provided above. Here is an excerpt where the Justices are referring to police manuals on interrogation:
The manuals also contain instructions for police on how to handle the individual who refuses to discuss the matter entirely, or who asks for an attorney or relatives. The examiner is to concede him the right to remain silent.
[align=left]This usually has a very undermining effect. First of all, he is disappointed in his expectation of an unfavorable reaction on the part of the interrogator. Secondly, a concession of this right to remain silent impresses [suP][n20][/suP] [/align]After this psychological conditioning, however, the officer is told to point out the incriminating significance of the suspect's refusal to talk:
[align=left]Joe, you have a right to remain silent. That's your privilege, and I'm the last person in the world who'll try to take it away from you. If that's the way you want to leave this, O. K. But let me ask you this. Suppose you were in my shoes, and I were in yours, and you called me in to ask me about this, and I told you, "I don't want to answer any of your questions." You'd think I had something to hide, and you'd probably be right in thinking that. That's exactly what I'll have to think about you, and so will everybody else. So let's sit here and talk this whole thing over.[suP] [n21][/suP] [/align]Few will persist in their initial refusal to talk, it is said, if this monologue is employed correctly.
In the event that the subject wishes to speak to a relative or an attorney, the following advice is tendered:
[align=left][T]he interrogator should respond by suggesting that the subject first tell the truth to the interrogator himself, rather than get anyone else involved in the matter. If the request is for an attorney, the interrogator may suggest that the subject save himself or his family the expense of any such professional service, particularly if he is innocent of the offense under investigation. The interrogator may also add, "Joe, I'm only looking for the truth, and if you're telling the truth, that's it. You can handle this by yourself."[suP] [n22][/suP] [p455] [/align]I urge caution and thoroughness before acceptinginformation that would tend to undermine the exercise ofenumerated rights.
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
The responder is forwarding the same or substantially similar information provided to a suspect, at least prior to 1966, during aninterrogation as a tactic to gain cooperation.
This is covered in Miranda vs Arizona. See the link provided above. Here is an excerpt where the Justices are referring to police manuals on interrogation:
The manuals also contain instructions for police on how to handle the individual who refuses to discuss the matter entirely, or who asks for an attorney or relatives. The examiner is to concede him the right to remain silent.
[align=left]This usually has a very undermining effect. First of all, he is disappointed in his expectation of an unfavorable reaction on the part of the interrogator. Secondly, a concession of this right to remain silent impresses [suP][n20][/suP] [/align]
[align=left]Joe, you have a right to remain silent. That's your privilege, and I'm the last person in the world who'll try to take it away from you. If that's the way you want to leave this, O. K. But let me ask you this. Suppose you were in my shoes, and I were in yours, and you called me in to ask me about this, and I told you, "I don't want to answer any of your questions." You'd think I had something to hide, and you'd probably be right in thinking that. That's exactly what I'll have to think about you, and so will everybody else. So let's sit here and talk this whole thing over.[suP] [n21][/suP] [/align]
In the event that the subject wishes to speak to a relative or an attorney, the following advice is tendered:
[align=left][T]he interrogator should respond by suggesting that the subject first tell the truth to the interrogator himself, rather than get anyone else involved in the matter. If the request is for an attorney, the interrogator may suggest that the subject save himself or his family the expense of any such professional service, particularly if he is innocent of the offense under investigation. The interrogator may also add, "Joe, I'm only looking for the truth, and if you're telling the truth, that's it. You can handle this by yourself."[suP] [n22][/suP] [p455] [/align]
Nelson_Muntz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Thank you sir. I hope never to be put in that position unnecessarily.
Thank you sir. I hope never to be put in that position unnecessarily.
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Keep this one thing in mind.....
An attorney does not want you to EVER talk to the police. This is because it makes his job harderfor HIM to fight for you in court. He must work more to create a plausible way out for you and if you provided detailsthat locks you in to a certain scenario he is limited on the story he can craft.
Having said that..... the attorney is not spending money, being arrested, and having to take time off from work. He is getting paid by YOU and wants his job to be easy so he works little for all he is going to charge you in fees.
So if I were an attorney.... I would tell you to keep your mouth shut too... I, as an attorney, have nothing to lose exceptyour case and I am still going to get paid.
Innocent people telling the truth are very unlikely to ever bearrested for the crime. Are their cases where you did not do it but said things that put you at the scene and ended up getting you arrested? Sure... these are few and few between.
Interviews are designed to either exclude you or identify if you could have done it.
In almost all my interviews I have obtained confessions. So it appears that I brought in the right person the 99% of the time. No innocent people getting screwed over.
I have interviewed people that I just could not prove did it but I know they did. I have interviewed people that I determined did not do it and I did not charge them. If they had refused to talk.. I would have focused in on them and that would have been a waste of my time.
As for Miranda warnings.... keep in mind that the person was arrested, is not free to leave, and is going to be charged. Nothing will help these guys unless they did not do it and can provide something at that moment to prove it. Otherwise... they are going downtown!! Now they can come clean on everything and their cooperation could have some bearing when it comes time to assignment punishment.
I have found that those that do come clean and save everybody time they tend to get less than the guy who wants to work the system for all it is worth.
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Keep this one thing in mind.....
An attorney does not want you to EVER talk to the police. This is because it makes his job harderfor HIM to fight for you in court. He must work more to create a plausible way out for you and if you provided detailsthat locks you in to a certain scenario he is limited on the story he can craft.
Having said that..... the attorney is not spending money, being arrested, and having to take time off from work. He is getting paid by YOU and wants his job to be easy so he works little for all he is going to charge you in fees.
So if I were an attorney.... I would tell you to keep your mouth shut too... I, as an attorney, have nothing to lose exceptyour case and I am still going to get paid.
Innocent people telling the truth are very unlikely to ever bearrested for the crime. Are their cases where you did not do it but said things that put you at the scene and ended up getting you arrested? Sure... these are few and few between.
Interviews are designed to either exclude you or identify if you could have done it.
In almost all my interviews I have obtained confessions. So it appears that I brought in the right person the 99% of the time. No innocent people getting screwed over.
I have interviewed people that I just could not prove did it but I know they did. I have interviewed people that I determined did not do it and I did not charge them. If they had refused to talk.. I would have focused in on them and that would have been a waste of my time.
As for Miranda warnings.... keep in mind that the person was arrested, is not free to leave, and is going to be charged. Nothing will help these guys unless they did not do it and can provide something at that moment to prove it. Otherwise... they are going downtown!! Now they can come clean on everything and their cooperation could have some bearing when it comes time to assignment punishment.
I have found that those that do come clean and save everybody time they tend to get less than the guy who wants to work the system for all it is worth.