I hate to say it, but that's 100% correct. There are exceptions - like if you're an innocent bystander to a simple accident or if you called the cops in case of an emergency. But otherwise, say NOTHING without an attorney present. Even if you get pulled over for speeding, say nothing.
Q: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
A: "No"
Q: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
A: "Yes, I do"
Q: "How fast do you think you were going?"
A: "Within the posted limits"
Q: "How fast is that?"
A: "I believe you already know that answer, officer"
Q: "Do you mind if I look around your car?"
A: "Not without my attorney present"
You're not trying to be a dick, but you have to watch out for yourself. You have to remember that police - especially detectives and other investigative officers - are trained to manipulate your statements. Not all police are honest ones. Therefore, say nothing and it can't be used against you in a court of law.
Remember My Cousin Vinny, when Ralph Macchio was being interrogated.
Q: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
A: I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?
Of course, in the court this becomes:
Q: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
A: I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.
Location: Helping Jeff Goldblum Pick Up Chicks Since 1993
Monday, July 28th, 2008 - 10:40pm
Blackadar wrote:
Remember My Cousin Vinny, when Ralph Macchio was being interrogated.
Q: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
A: I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?
Of course, in the court this becomes:
Q: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
A: I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.
Yeah, I mean why would he shoot the clerk when he could use those crazy karate kid moves to jump kick his head off or something
Fletcher wrote:
Wear the Filthy Skimmer badge with honor. For we have all, at one time or another, been filthy skimmers. And it is our brotherly duty to remind each other, that although the path of the skimmer is quick, it is also treacherous.
A lot of it is common sense, but this really hammers it home the way it needs to be.
This is purely from a legal perspective though. As the professor says, there is a stigma surrounding the fifth amendment. Public figures have to weigh the risk of the loss of that right against the loss of face they would take in the public arena.
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas... Houston that is...
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 - 10:01am
well I don't know about taking the 5th on a speeding ticket, I find you can weasle your way out of them if your nice. But if the police came up to me and asked me where was I on the night of so and so I would say nothing.
Xfire: Pharacon
Tempest says: "A team hat doe snot communicate and talk to each other about what the next move will be is going to lose."
Mex is my hero = "f*ck it, I'll do it. WE'LL DO IT LIVE."
A good friend of mine is a principal of a large private security firm. They work with the police constantly and they conduct "interviews" like the police, albeit with fewer restrictions, and we've had many conversations in which he makes the same points as both the law professor and the officer.
I learned this lesson from an old boss of mine. He was driving in the rain in Redmond, some animal shot out of the brush from the side of the road and he slammed the brakes on and swerved and skidded off the road. He got out to see if there was any damage to the bodywork on the side of his car, and a cop came by (squad cars are spaced about one-per-square-centimeter in the Seattle area, in case you've never been there). The officer asked him what happened, and he explained that he had to swerve to avoid an animal, so the cop says "well, sounds like you were driving too fast for conditions" and wrote him up. This was back in the day when the glorious MS legal insurance paid for free traffic lawyers, so the infamous Jeannie Mucklestone was put on the case, and he went to court to fight it.
My old boss wrote:
I go in there, watch all the fools without lawyers go up and get shot down and found guilty. Then finally it's my turn. The judge recognizes Jeannie, they chat a bit, then they get to the case. When they bring up my statement to the cop at the scene that I couldn't stop in time in the rain, the judge looks over at me and says "I guess we learned to keep our mouth shut, hmm?" Jeannie, of course, was still able to get me off, but that experience taught me two things: never say a word to the cops, and always get a lawyer.
Between watching The Wire and allot of The First 48 if I ever found myself in a interview room the first word out of my mouth would be 'Lawyer' followed up with 'Lawyer'.
And another important tip, this one from my shifty defense attorney friend. If you should somehow find yourself under questioning, be sure to unequivocally state that you will not continue without a lawyer. Apparently one guy, after being arrested, stated "I think I want a lawyer," and they got away with continuing to question him anyway since he just said that he thought he wanted one, rather than saying he wanted one.
I can agree that you should talk a bare minimum amount and never admit to anything whatsoever. A few years ago, I had a similar experience to the one Mr. Crinkle's guy did. I was out for a drive really late with a friend one night on an isolated winter road that was slippery because of the overuse of road salt that's common here. An animal jumped out which I instinctively tried to swerve to avoid and we ended up on our side in a ditch. I called the cops who I happened to overhear were mighty upset that I pulled them out of a Tim Horton's about 30 miles away. My tax dollars hard at work.
Upon arrival, their first action was to accuse me of speeding or reckless driving. I was doing neither and steadfastly held to that position. Even though it was -30C out, they insisted that I get in the back of their car while my gloveless friend stood out in the cold and questioned me further. I continued to say that I wasn't speeding and that I didn't appreciate their accusatory tone considering I called them to help us. They then went "OK, you say you tried to miss an animal? Let's find out!" and proceeded to turn on their spotlight and drive along the road looking for tracks. They were everywhere and the conclusion was undeniable. They just grumbled and when they heard my friend was coming to bring us home, they sped off before he arrived and left us there. I called their station the next day and complained. The person I spoke to agreed that their behaviour was both not acceptable and against procedure and that if they were hanging out at a Tim Horton's while on-shift, that was also inappropriate. I never heard anything about it again and I have no idea if any action was taken against them. I'm certain they got away with it.
Only keeping my mouth shut and refusing to admit the wrong they were trying to get me to is what kept me from being charged with a crime purely for making officers do actual work. This is the main reason why I don't trust police at all.
"We're taught from a young age how to dodge rock hard objects moving at incredible rates of speed while simultaneously beating folks half to death with sticks. We do this for fun." -kung fu grip http://blog.digital-lifeline.ca
Officer: License and registration?
Me: Not without my lawyer.
I guess the reason I'm reluctant to trust cops is that a lot of people I grew up with stayed close to home. The ones who ended up in law enforcement were the bullies and assholes.
Hey, we have some cop and ex-cop goodjers, y'know. Where's Swampy? Jarhead?
Officer: License and registration?
Me: Not without my lawyer.
I guess the reason I'm reluctant to trust cops is that a lot of people I grew up with stayed close to home. The ones who ended up in law enforcement were the bullies and assholes.
Hey, we have some cop and ex-cop goodjers, y'know. Where's Swampy? Jarhead?
Well, license and registration isn't really admitting to anything except that you own the car and you are licensed to drive... I believe the point of this is to not say anything the cops can turn against you as a reason for charges.
I got pulled over for the first time one morning on my way to work. I commute nearly an hour to get to work, and I'm heading out of town, away from the city in the area (Pittsburgh). I didn't really know what to say or how to deal with cops, this was only the second time I'd ever spoken to one, the first time was after a fender-bender with a PennDOT-owned highway mowing tractor.
First, what happened was, I was driving along in the slow lane, and there was a woman next to me in the passing lane driving the same speed, and keeping pace with me. That gets on my nerves, partially because I just don't like it, partially because on-ramps on Pennsylvania highways tend to be terribly under-engineered, to the point that you usually don't have much room to get up to speed, so if someone wanted to get on the highway, I couldn't move over to let them on. And generally, sitting next to me at these speeds just seems unsafe. So, pissed off, I speed up to get ahead of and away from her. Apparently, we were both speeding, because after the cop pulled me over, he got out of his car, and flagged down the woman who had been next to me.
The odd thing was, this was not a State Trooper (aka Highway Patrol in other states). It was a local cop, and in Pennsylvania, local cops cannot use radar to clock speeds, and I didn't see any VASCAR lines on the road at any point, which leads me to believe now that he hadn't really clocked our speeds, and just pulled us over because we had been going obviously faster than the flow of traffic.
His claim was that he caught me going 78 in a 65. I doubt I ever got that high. He also didn't give me a speeding ticket, which reinforces the idea that he didn't really clock my speed, and I never admitted to speeding. He gave me a "failure to obey traffic control devices" ticket, which usually applies to things like running red lights or stop signs. In this case, he justified it by saying I hadn't been obeying speed limit signs. It carries a lower fine and no points on your license, thus this never really made it back to my insurance.
It probably didn't hurt that I was respectful, and did what I could to put the officer at ease. A friend has a brother who is a state trooper, and she told me that cops don't like sudden moves, and it helps to explain what you're going to do before you do it so you don't startle them, so I told him when I was getting my wallet and reaching across to the glove box for the insurance card. I knew at least that much. He may have been grateful for an easy, no-hassle stop, too.
I believe the point of this is to not say anything the cops can turn against you as a reason for charges.
Actually, he goes on at length to specifically say that even if you say nothing they can turn against you, nothing you say can actually help you. And on top of that you can make an honest mistake which comes out as a lie or a phrase that can be misinterpreted. Or places something you say honestly against a lie from a mistaken witness, creating a 'star witness' against you.
I agree that this is a bit overboard and it makes the cops' jobs harder because if everyone did this investigations would slow to a crawl. Still, it is very wise advice, and I completely understand it from the lawyer's point of view.
I watch a lot of Court TV (excuse me, TruTV), and it's pretty common for a witness affidavit to help solve some pretty brutal, nasty crimes. Sometimes that's all they have to go on. We often see criticisms of Americans that we're so reluctant to "get involved" with "someone else's problem" and clearly it isn't in our own self interest to do so. Where does being a responsible member of the community come into play? Or is that out the window because we have a system of laws designed to punish criminals rather than protect citizens?
Lobster, I think they mentioned a couple times in the presentation that a witness (and specifically if you contacted the police yourself), is a different story. But that doesn't mean you don't have to be careful. There are a lot of cases where a witness could easily turn into a suspect if the cops look at it a certain way.
Quote:
Or is that out the window because we have a system of laws designed to punish criminals rather than protect citizens?
That gets a bit too deep for me without some research
I think the line crosses when you realize you might be a suspect for something that isn't a slap on the wrist. They did do a fairly poor job of describing that but I think the assumption they were going on is that you have already been arrested and have not demanded your lawyer or that you go into a interview room fully knowing you are a possible suspect and you do so in an attempt to convince the police you are not. In both scenarios you are absolutely nuts to do so without a lawyer according to them and I would agree.
There was no assumption about being in an interview room. The second speaker mentions how all interview rooms are recorded, and the first speaker talks about being asked questions at your house, or in the police car, or how in court it ends up being their word against yours.
The line crosses when they think you are a suspect. Regardless of whether you realize it or not. And that's the problem.
or that you go into a interview room fully knowing you are a possible suspect
That said I think theres not much you can give up until they start asking probing question which should trigger your brain to think, "Hey wtf is this about! whats the crime? am I a suspect? shut your mouth!" and you stop what maybe started as an innocent conversation into a you asking "Whats this about? am I a suspect?".
jowner, I really don't see how repeating that makes any difference to what I said. Actually, it was exactly the point I was trying to make.
jowner wrote:
I think the line crosses when you realize you might be a suspect for something that isn't a slap on the wrist. They did do a fairly poor job of describing that but I think the assumption they were going on is that you have already been arrested and have not demanded your lawyer or that you go into a interview room fully knowing you are a possible suspect and you do so in an attempt to convince the police you are not. In both scenarios you are absolutely nuts to do so without a lawyer according to them and I would agree.
I said that is not the assumption.
jowner wrote:
That said I think theres not much you can give up until they start asking probing question which should trigger your brain to think, "Hey wtf is this about! whats the crime? am I a suspect? shut your mouth!" and you stop what maybe started as an innocent conversation into a you asking "Whats this about? am I a suspect?".
Rewatch the video. Mainly the first speaker, the second one was the one who talked about 'interviews' the whole time, which do generally happen after an arrest or you have been declared a suspect.
I really don't see how a conversation with the police starts otherwise. They usually don't call you out of the blue or stop you on the street to just ask how your day is.
For me the first video was heavily aimed towards to type of person who gets the classical cop line "Hey could you come down to the precinct and answer some questions?" and does so because they think they have 0 to lose as they know they are innocent and the point was even if you are this helps you in no way.
Not sure if you have seen the A&E show The First 48 but the majority of their suspects are not interviewed over the phone but asked to come down to answer some questions (never I'd as a suspect over the phone as they obviously don't want to come in then) and the next thing they know they are in a interview room being implicated in some sort of crime. The amount of people who don't end the discussion immediately once they realize this is shocking.
You know, I have to apologize. I just watched it again, and clearly there is the assumption of the client being a suspect. My one potential argument is the quote around 16:09 in where they say "Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from their own mouth." I would say that if you are the witness to an event, or are being questioned as such, you should be just as careful. He does say in the beginning he would not talk under any circumstances, but you can take that how you will.
Truth be told, while many pr slogans for police include some form of "...protect and serve...," the truth is that they are not obligated to do either. Their main priority, before anything else, is to keep peace.
I've been pulled over probably 5-6 times in the last four years and every time, I do the same thing. When I'm pulled over, I find a safe spot, even if it means driving a little further, getting my license and insurance in hand, turning the car off when the officer pulls me over, and I put both hands with the insurance and license (our registration is on our windshield in TX) out my car window. Then when they do ask how fast I was going, I simply tell them I do not know. (which is the truth since my tires are a different size and my gearing hasn't been adjusted for my jeep). I've been given one ticket, which has been nice.
I would never, ever let anoter officer search my car. I would put the burden of probable cause and them explaining it to a judge on them. This isn't a problem with my open Jeep, but was when I had an Explorer. I was asked on two occassions. The deal is that the person getting searched may think everything is in order, but the Average Joe has no idea what laws are on the books and what can be a crime. Worse yet are horror stories of planted evidence by cops.
Well, Cooking Mama didn't help me become a better cook, and Trauma Center certainly didn't help me become a better surgeon. I have the proof of both sitting in my freezer. -- imbiginjapan
I'm generally cooperative (that people seem to want to believe me helps), but I draw the line at searches.
I've been in a car when a cop had planted evidence on the car. And used it to try to implicate me. The only reason I'm not a convicted felon about now, is that I can medically prove that I'm allergic to marijuana, and because of that, it threw his whole thing into doubt. (I am horribly allergic. I'll end up in the hospital without my albuterol inhaler.) Never again.
Generally though, I get along well with cops. I don't intimidate or scare easily, and I'm horribly twitchy, and I know what sets me off, so I don't do anything that would make the officer freak out.
That I'm lucky enough to meet some truly awesome police officers helps, as well as me not being paranoid. Which also helps. (Most officers here really are committed to the "Protect and Serve" motto.)
OK, so here's a question. The professor said that if the police/government agency wants to talk to you then you should only agree under the condition of immunity.
How do you GET immunity? How do you know the police aren't just telling you that you have immunity? How would you prove it in court? Or are we right back to "have a lawyer present?" Maybe it's just smart but it seems both expensive and suspicious to me to insist on having a lawyer present when you're just giving an affidavit.
OK, so here's a question. The professor said that if the police/government agency wants to talk to you then you should only agree under the condition of immunity.
How do you GET immunity? How do you know the police aren't just telling you that you have immunity? How would you prove it in court? Or are we right back to "have a lawyer present?" Maybe it's just smart but it seems both expensive and suspicious to me to insist on having a lawyer present when you're just giving an affidavit.
Lawyer up and talk to the DA. But immunity seems extreme, depending on what they want to question you about.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
OK, so here's a question. The professor said that if the police/government agency wants to talk to you then you should only agree under the condition of immunity.
How do you GET immunity? How do you know the police aren't just telling you that you have immunity? How would you prove it in court? Or are we right back to "have a lawyer present?" Maybe it's just smart but it seems both expensive and suspicious to me to insist on having a lawyer present when you're just giving an affidavit.
Lawyer up and talk to the DA. But immunity seems extreme, depending on what they want to question you about.
The DA would probably agree with you in many cases, but if you don't ask for immunity, the answer is already "No".
I suspect that the ideal situation is to ask for a lawyer, then have the lawyer work with the DA to set any immunity agreements.
I hate to say it, but that's 100% correct. There are exceptions - like if you're an innocent bystander to a simple accident or if you called the cops in case of an emergency. But otherwise, say NOTHING without an attorney present. Even if you get pulled over for speeding, say nothing.
Q: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
A: "No"
Q: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
A: "Yes, I do"
Q: "How fast do you think you were going?"
A: "Within the posted limits"
Q: "How fast is that?"
A: "I believe you already know that answer, officer"
Q: "Do you mind if I look around your car?"
A: "Not without my attorney present"
You're not trying to be a dick, but you have to watch out for yourself. You have to remember that police - especially detectives and other investigative officers - are trained to manipulate your statements. Not all police are honest ones. Therefore, say nothing and it can't be used against you in a court of law.
Remember My Cousin Vinny, when Ralph Macchio was being interrogated.
Q: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
A: I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?
Of course, in the court this becomes:
Q: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
A: I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk.
I am so going to quote that out of context.
Yeah, I mean why would he shoot the clerk when he could use those crazy karate kid moves to jump kick his head off or something
Fletcher wrote:
A lot of it is common sense, but this really hammers it home the way it needs to be.
This is purely from a legal perspective though. As the professor says, there is a stigma surrounding the fifth amendment. Public figures have to weigh the risk of the loss of that right against the loss of face they would take in the public arena.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
This is completely accurate. Talking to police can never help you, only hurt you.
I love the part where the cop says he could follow anyone for a few miles and pull them over on a justifiable violation.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
MaverickDago wrote:
Cyrana Mage 72 ~ Artesia Druid 70
Cyranna Shaman 62 ~ Acereri - DK 61 ~ Artasian - Priest 59 ~ Lenna - Rogue 60
well I don't know about taking the 5th on a speeding ticket, I find you can weasle your way out of them if your nice. But if the police came up to me and asked me where was I on the night of so and so I would say nothing.
Xfire: Pharacon
Tempest says: "A team hat doe snot communicate and talk to each other about what the next move will be is going to lose."
Mex is my hero = "f*ck it, I'll do it. WE'LL DO IT LIVE."
A good friend of mine is a principal of a large private security firm. They work with the police constantly and they conduct "interviews" like the police, albeit with fewer restrictions, and we've had many conversations in which he makes the same points as both the law professor and the officer.
XBox Live: Croutonic | Bungie.net: Croutonic
kaostheory wrote:
I learned this lesson from an old boss of mine. He was driving in the rain in Redmond, some animal shot out of the brush from the side of the road and he slammed the brakes on and swerved and skidded off the road. He got out to see if there was any damage to the bodywork on the side of his car, and a cop came by (squad cars are spaced about one-per-square-centimeter in the Seattle area, in case you've never been there). The officer asked him what happened, and he explained that he had to swerve to avoid an animal, so the cop says "well, sounds like you were driving too fast for conditions" and wrote him up. This was back in the day when the glorious MS legal insurance paid for free traffic lawyers, so the infamous Jeannie Mucklestone was put on the case, and he went to court to fight it.
XBLive: Ruckus
Between watching The Wire and allot of The First 48 if I ever found myself in a interview room the first word out of my mouth would be 'Lawyer' followed up with 'Lawyer'.
And another important tip, this one from my shifty defense attorney friend. If you should somehow find yourself under questioning, be sure to unequivocally state that you will not continue without a lawyer. Apparently one guy, after being arrested, stated "I think I want a lawyer," and they got away with continuing to question him anyway since he just said that he thought he wanted one, rather than saying he wanted one.
XBLive: Ruckus
I can agree that you should talk a bare minimum amount and never admit to anything whatsoever. A few years ago, I had a similar experience to the one Mr. Crinkle's guy did. I was out for a drive really late with a friend one night on an isolated winter road that was slippery because of the overuse of road salt that's common here. An animal jumped out which I instinctively tried to swerve to avoid and we ended up on our side in a ditch. I called the cops who I happened to overhear were mighty upset that I pulled them out of a Tim Horton's about 30 miles away. My tax dollars hard at work.
Upon arrival, their first action was to accuse me of speeding or reckless driving. I was doing neither and steadfastly held to that position. Even though it was -30C out, they insisted that I get in the back of their car while my gloveless friend stood out in the cold and questioned me further. I continued to say that I wasn't speeding and that I didn't appreciate their accusatory tone considering I called them to help us. They then went "OK, you say you tried to miss an animal? Let's find out!" and proceeded to turn on their spotlight and drive along the road looking for tracks. They were everywhere and the conclusion was undeniable. They just grumbled and when they heard my friend was coming to bring us home, they sped off before he arrived and left us there. I called their station the next day and complained. The person I spoke to agreed that their behaviour was both not acceptable and against procedure and that if they were hanging out at a Tim Horton's while on-shift, that was also inappropriate. I never heard anything about it again and I have no idea if any action was taken against them. I'm certain they got away with it.
Only keeping my mouth shut and refusing to admit the wrong they were trying to get me to is what kept me from being charged with a crime purely for making officers do actual work. This is the main reason why I don't trust police at all.
"We're taught from a young age how to dodge rock hard objects moving at incredible rates of speed while simultaneously beating folks half to death with sticks. We do this for fun." -kung fu grip
http://blog.digital-lifeline.ca
There are limits to this, guys.
Officer: License and registration?
Me: Not without my lawyer.
I guess the reason I'm reluctant to trust cops is that a lot of people I grew up with stayed close to home. The ones who ended up in law enforcement were the bullies and assholes.
Hey, we have some cop and ex-cop goodjers, y'know. Where's Swampy? Jarhead?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Well, license and registration isn't really admitting to anything except that you own the car and you are licensed to drive... I believe the point of this is to not say anything the cops can turn against you as a reason for charges.
I got pulled over for the first time one morning on my way to work. I commute nearly an hour to get to work, and I'm heading out of town, away from the city in the area (Pittsburgh). I didn't really know what to say or how to deal with cops, this was only the second time I'd ever spoken to one, the first time was after a fender-bender with a PennDOT-owned highway mowing tractor.
First, what happened was, I was driving along in the slow lane, and there was a woman next to me in the passing lane driving the same speed, and keeping pace with me. That gets on my nerves, partially because I just don't like it, partially because on-ramps on Pennsylvania highways tend to be terribly under-engineered, to the point that you usually don't have much room to get up to speed, so if someone wanted to get on the highway, I couldn't move over to let them on. And generally, sitting next to me at these speeds just seems unsafe. So, pissed off, I speed up to get ahead of and away from her. Apparently, we were both speeding, because after the cop pulled me over, he got out of his car, and flagged down the woman who had been next to me.
The odd thing was, this was not a State Trooper (aka Highway Patrol in other states). It was a local cop, and in Pennsylvania, local cops cannot use radar to clock speeds, and I didn't see any VASCAR lines on the road at any point, which leads me to believe now that he hadn't really clocked our speeds, and just pulled us over because we had been going obviously faster than the flow of traffic.
His claim was that he caught me going 78 in a 65. I doubt I ever got that high. He also didn't give me a speeding ticket, which reinforces the idea that he didn't really clock my speed, and I never admitted to speeding. He gave me a "failure to obey traffic control devices" ticket, which usually applies to things like running red lights or stop signs. In this case, he justified it by saying I hadn't been obeying speed limit signs. It carries a lower fine and no points on your license, thus this never really made it back to my insurance.
It probably didn't hurt that I was respectful, and did what I could to put the officer at ease. A friend has a brother who is a state trooper, and she told me that cops don't like sudden moves, and it helps to explain what you're going to do before you do it so you don't startle them, so I told him when I was getting my wallet and reaching across to the glove box for the insurance card. I knew at least that much. He may have been grateful for an easy, no-hassle stop, too.
XBL: NSMike | Steam | PSN: NSMike | Wii Friend Code: 7763 1519 2475 2278 | GWJ Google Calendar
I agree, nsmike. So where's the line between demanding a lawyer and being uncooperative or resisting?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Actually, he goes on at length to specifically say that even if you say nothing they can turn against you, nothing you say can actually help you. And on top of that you can make an honest mistake which comes out as a lie or a phrase that can be misinterpreted. Or places something you say honestly against a lie from a mistaken witness, creating a 'star witness' against you.
I agree that this is a bit overboard and it makes the cops' jobs harder because if everyone did this investigations would slow to a crawl. Still, it is very wise advice, and I completely understand it from the lawyer's point of view.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
I watch a lot of Court TV (excuse me, TruTV), and it's pretty common for a witness affidavit to help solve some pretty brutal, nasty crimes. Sometimes that's all they have to go on. We often see criticisms of Americans that we're so reluctant to "get involved" with "someone else's problem" and clearly it isn't in our own self interest to do so. Where does being a responsible member of the community come into play? Or is that out the window because we have a system of laws designed to punish criminals rather than protect citizens?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Lobster, I think they mentioned a couple times in the presentation that a witness (and specifically if you contacted the police yourself), is a different story. But that doesn't mean you don't have to be careful. There are a lot of cases where a witness could easily turn into a suspect if the cops look at it a certain way.
That gets a bit too deep for me without some research
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
I think the line crosses when you realize you might be a suspect for something that isn't a slap on the wrist. They did do a fairly poor job of describing that but I think the assumption they were going on is that you have already been arrested and have not demanded your lawyer or that you go into a interview room fully knowing you are a possible suspect and you do so in an attempt to convince the police you are not. In both scenarios you are absolutely nuts to do so without a lawyer according to them and I would agree.
There was no assumption about being in an interview room. The second speaker mentions how all interview rooms are recorded, and the first speaker talks about being asked questions at your house, or in the police car, or how in court it ends up being their word against yours.
The line crosses when they think you are a suspect. Regardless of whether you realize it or not. And that's the problem.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
Here let me quote myself.
That said I think theres not much you can give up until they start asking probing question which should trigger your brain to think, "Hey wtf is this about! whats the crime? am I a suspect? shut your mouth!" and you stop what maybe started as an innocent conversation into a you asking "Whats this about? am I a suspect?".
jowner, I really don't see how repeating that makes any difference to what I said. Actually, it was exactly the point I was trying to make.
I said that is not the assumption.
Rewatch the video. Mainly the first speaker, the second one was the one who talked about 'interviews' the whole time, which do generally happen after an arrest or you have been declared a suspect.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
I really don't see how a conversation with the police starts otherwise. They usually don't call you out of the blue or stop you on the street to just ask how your day is.
For me the first video was heavily aimed towards to type of person who gets the classical cop line "Hey could you come down to the precinct and answer some questions?" and does so because they think they have 0 to lose as they know they are innocent and the point was even if you are this helps you in no way.
Not sure if you have seen the A&E show The First 48 but the majority of their suspects are not interviewed over the phone but asked to come down to answer some questions (never I'd as a suspect over the phone as they obviously don't want to come in then) and the next thing they know they are in a interview room being implicated in some sort of crime. The amount of people who don't end the discussion immediately once they realize this is shocking.
So, I shouldn't have answered the officer's question about what the board game in my back seat was?
JUST PUZZLED YOUR ASS UP, SON! -Mr Crinkle
You know, I have to apologize. I just watched it again, and clearly there is the assumption of the client being a suspect. My one potential argument is the quote around 16:09 in where they say "Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from their own mouth." I would say that if you are the witness to an event, or are being questioned as such, you should be just as careful. He does say in the beginning he would not talk under any circumstances, but you can take that how you will.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
Truth be told, while many pr slogans for police include some form of "...protect and serve...," the truth is that they are not obligated to do either. Their main priority, before anything else, is to keep peace.
I've been pulled over probably 5-6 times in the last four years and every time, I do the same thing. When I'm pulled over, I find a safe spot, even if it means driving a little further, getting my license and insurance in hand, turning the car off when the officer pulls me over, and I put both hands with the insurance and license (our registration is on our windshield in TX) out my car window. Then when they do ask how fast I was going, I simply tell them I do not know. (which is the truth since my tires are a different size and my gearing hasn't been adjusted for my jeep). I've been given one ticket, which has been nice.
I would never, ever let anoter officer search my car. I would put the burden of probable cause and them explaining it to a judge on them. This isn't a problem with my open Jeep, but was when I had an Explorer. I was asked on two occassions. The deal is that the person getting searched may think everything is in order, but the Average Joe has no idea what laws are on the books and what can be a crime. Worse yet are horror stories of planted evidence by cops.
Well, Cooking Mama didn't help me become a better cook, and Trauma Center certainly didn't help me become a better surgeon. I have the proof of both sitting in my freezer. -- imbiginjapan
I'm generally cooperative (that people seem to want to believe me helps), but I draw the line at searches.
I've been in a car when a cop had planted evidence on the car. And used it to try to implicate me. The only reason I'm not a convicted felon about now, is that I can medically prove that I'm allergic to marijuana, and because of that, it threw his whole thing into doubt. (I am horribly allergic. I'll end up in the hospital without my albuterol inhaler.) Never again.
Generally though, I get along well with cops. I don't intimidate or scare easily, and I'm horribly twitchy, and I know what sets me off, so I don't do anything that would make the officer freak out.
That I'm lucky enough to meet some truly awesome police officers helps, as well as me not being paranoid. Which also helps. (Most officers here really are committed to the "Protect and Serve" motto.)
St.Hillary wrote:
Commence your hatred, gentlemen.OK, so here's a question. The professor said that if the police/government agency wants to talk to you then you should only agree under the condition of immunity.
How do you GET immunity? How do you know the police aren't just telling you that you have immunity? How would you prove it in court? Or are we right back to "have a lawyer present?" Maybe it's just smart but it seems both expensive and suspicious to me to insist on having a lawyer present when you're just giving an affidavit.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Lawyer up and talk to the DA. But immunity seems extreme, depending on what they want to question you about.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
The DA would probably agree with you in many cases, but if you don't ask for immunity, the answer is already "No".
I suspect that the ideal situation is to ask for a lawyer, then have the lawyer work with the DA to set any immunity agreements.
GWJ Alliance on Blackhand
Lunazul - Rouge & GWJ Paparazzo
Lunarel - Druid
Funkenpants wrote: