Don't Talk to the Police

I subscribed at youtube to Michael's "the odds must be crazy" and have noticed that he has some "flex your rights" stuff there.

In an open comment to him, let me suggest that he also add "don't talk to the police" videos.

Now, I think it is undoubtedly true that the both of us are interested in the subject from the perspective of knowing and respecting one's rights, not from the perspective of the criminal looking after his own interests! In that vein, it is important to realize that the below is a professor talking to a group as if to students, telling them that, when as a lawyer with a client facing a serious charge, that the client should not talk to the police. It does not fit the scenario of helping the police in their duties if you can. So short of allowing them to search you, and probably short of going to the station to be interviewed in some cases, yes, you can and should talk to the police. But never if you could possibly be considered a suspect or be vulnerable in some similar way. As the video points out, even if you are absolutely 100% confident you are going to confess to something, it is critical you do that at the right time, not in some police interview while being intimidated.

Here they are, this is good stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhbJd2USUDI&feature=watch_response_rev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stN3KjsVT-A&feature=watch_response_rev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLryWyf2Kg

I saw those videos in the course of some research for a book. The advice actually is not to talk to the police without a lawyer if you could possibly be considered a suspect.

Excellent advice. Especially true of Federal investigators. Remember Martha Stewart? She went to jail for lying to investigators, not for any real crime. They can nail you for that if you simply have a faulty memory.

Talking to the police is never a good idea unless
you absolutely have to. They tend not to trust
anybody, think everybody is lying and everybody
has an agenda. On top of that, a lot of them
aren't very bright, are lazy, and tend to do sloppy
work. Keep your mouth shut. I don't mean to imply
they are all this way, but enough of them are.

Quote: EvenBob

Talking to the police is never a good idea unless
you absolutely have to. They tend not to trust
anybody, think everybody is lying and everybody
has an agenda. On top of that, a lot of them
aren't very bright, are lazy, and tend to do sloppy
work. Keep your mouth shut. I don't mean to imply
they are all this way, but enough of them are.

Unfortunately this is true. A job where you can bully people and they have to listen attracts a bad element.

I agree with those who say it is a bad idea. And my reason is somewhat along the lines of what bigfoot66 says. Minimize your time interacting with cops. The less you say the better off you are, and the faster you are out of their presence. Nothing good can come from most encounters with cops.

I say this as an upstanding and law abiding person, a regular middle class guy with a family. Cops chill me to the bone. And now they have tasers.

Quote: Mosca

Cops chill me to the bone. .

I haven't dealt with cops in years. The last time was
2 years ago when I got pulled over by a fat lady
county mountie who looked like Miss Piggy in a
uniform. I had a bad brake light and she treated me
like I was dog crap on the bottom of her shoe. I
have a squeaky clean driving record, haven't had
ticket in 25 years. There's no reason for her to
treat me like I'm Dillinger, it reminded me how much
I dislike dealing the police.

Driving with my brother in San Clemente, CA we were pulled over by police. They asked him a number of questions like what he was doing there, where he was coming from, where he was going. He answered all of the questions respectfully. They said he sounded nervous and told us both to step out of the car. They frisked us and asked to search his car. They put us in the back of the squad car "for our protection and theirs" and said we were not under arrest. I was thinking it sure feels like we are under arrest although they never cuffed us. After they basically turned his car upside down they gave us our IDs back and said have a nice day. I asked why we were pulled over the officer said "you are missing your front plate, get that fixed". When we got back in the car everything from the glove compartment and center console was thrown everywhere.

I can't blame it on race because we are white and the cop was white. The only thing I can think of is my brother's car is beat up, he is in his early 20s and shaves his head really close like a skinhead. I still feel like that's no reason to do what they did. Not to be overly dramatic but if this happens to you it really feels like you've been raped in a way.

Quote: RogerKint

Not to be overly dramatic but if this happens to you it really feels like you've been raped in a way.

'To Serve and Protect'

Quote: RogerKint

The only thing I can think of is my brother's car is beat up, he is in his early 20s and shaves his head really close like a skinhead. I still feel like that's no reason to do what they did. Not to be overly dramatic but if this happens to you it really feels like you've been raped in a way.

Maybe it wouldn't do any good, but I think a call or letter
to the Mayor or Chief of Police calmly outlining how
poorly you were treated would have been in order.

Quote: Mosca

I say this as an upstanding and law abiding person, a regular middle class guy with a family. Cops chill me to the bone. And now they have tasers.

I would go so far as to say I back the regular police, the guy walking the beat etc, and appreciate them.

For traffic cops, on the other hand, everybody seems to have had a bad experience somewhere somehow. I do not extend my friendly feelings towards those folks, although of course some of them are OK.

One problem today is that they are in cars and not walking a beat. Those days were better, and the cops were really forced to be more human. You could really feel, especially as a kid, that they were there to help keep you out of trouble. "Hey, you guys, clear out of there" might be what you would hear. Different times.

I watched the video several years ago, and still recommend it to people all the time.

Quote: Nareed

I saw those videos in the course of some research for a book. The advice actually is not to talk to the police without a lawyer if you could possibly be considered a suspect.

I actually think the point of the video is to not say anything except to a jury. Even a deposition, which is attended by your attorney, can be cut up and displayed to the jury in any way that an opposing attorney may want. Obviously, if you have a good (better) attorney, she will counter with the full transcript of the deposition.

It's also not possible to completely avoid talking to the police, but I think the point is: say nothing to the police by yourself; say as little as possible with the presence of an attorney; and reserve as much as possible to say to a jury so they can hear the full story.

I've known several people who have had trouble with the law. From minor drug and indecency charges, all the way up to theft and embezzlement. Most of the cases were made against them because of something they said to a police officer. I'm not saying they would have been found innocent had their cases gone to trial. But had they simply said, "I'm not saying anything except to a jury of my peers, who are supposed to be trying me, not you," it might have at least made it more difficult.

It's up to the police/prosecutor to prove their case, and talking to them, even with an attorney, can only help their case. If they want to ask you where you were at the time of the murder, make them ask you in front of a jury. Then the jury gets to hear the question, and the answer, and nothing can be edited or taken out of context. It makes much more sense to force the prosecutor to have to prove anything and everything. And if you do force them, you at least have a small chance of getting away with it, if you did it. We all know of individuals in high profile cases that, whatever we may think or feel about the issue, were eventually acquitted, because the prosecution couldn't PROVE the case. Feelings aren't going to do it. So why give the prosecution any information at all?

The more interesting aspect of the video, IMO, is the fact that even if innocent, you shouldn't talk to the police.

All that being said, if/when I get pulled over for speeding, I tell the police officer exactly how fast I was going. But I also live in a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit state, so as long as I'm not doing 100 in a school zone, I can pretty much get away with any speed. However, should I start to be questioned for something serious, you can bet I'm going to invoke the 5th amendment and my miranda rights, and clam up.

The only thing I will add to this thread is there are bad people and sometimes bad cops, but don't for a minute sit there and try and paint everyone with the same brush. How simple minded, hypocritical, and lazy is that?

Carry on.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

The only thing I will add to this thread is there are bad people and sometimes bad cops, but don't for a minute sit there and try and paint everyone with the same brush. How simple minded, hypocritical, and lazy is that?

I agree.

However, it's also important to note that the definition of someone being a "bad" person, may change with the circumstances. For the most part, our society believes that lying is a bad thing to do. However, if a police officer lies to a suspect in order to get him to open up about the crime he committed, we might argue that the cop was doing his job, and doing his job makes him a "good" person, although the person who was lied to might disagree and call him a "bad person."

Consider the situation when you get pulled over by a peace officer:

PO: Do you know how fast you were driving?
Me: No.
PO: Well, I clocked you at 90 miles per hour.
Me: There's no way! I was only going 80 tops!
PO: OK, then I will only give you a ticket for 80.

Maybe the cop only got me on the radar for 75, which is still ticketable, but by lying, he was able to get me for a faster speed. He's just doing his job, and lying happens to be a part of his job. That makes him a "good" peace officer, but maybe a "bad" person? Depends on your point of view, I would guess.

The point of the video isn't to portray that cops are bad or that anybody is bad. It simply to state the opinion/(fact?) that talking to the police, when they are questioning you about something that you may or may not have done, is not beneficial to you in any way.

PO: Do you know how fast you were driving?
Me: I refuse to make any statement that may incriminate me.
PO: Well, I clocked you at 90 miles per hour.
Me:
PO: OK, I'm giving you a ticket.

If he only clocked me at 75, that's all he could ticket me for. In this instance, he doesn't have my admission to having driven faster. He may have tried to draw me out to get me to say more, but as long as I'm quiet, it's up to him to prove my speed.

I have family members that are peace officers, and they agree with the statements in the video. They will use tricks and lies to get you to say something you shouldn't. In their minds, it doesn't make them bad people. It's sometimes distasteful, but it makes them good at their job. And they think a smart person won't talk to the police on their own. It's just fortunate for them that the majority of criminals are pretty stupid.

Quote: EvenBob

'To Serve and Protect'

To "serve" is cop-talk for dominate.

Most "strange" vehicle searches are in hopes of seizing the car for departmental money: flashy equipment, training day at a spa, etc. Some are just for fun or relief of boredom.

Some real idiots should never open their mouths. Two kids arrested for mugging a little old lady just after she left the bank with her pension check's proceeds were told they were being released due to the shaky identification, so one asked for "their" money back and was told he would have to see the Police Property Clerk from 8:00 to 4:00. So the kids said to the other: Jeez, we commit the perfect crime and they won't give us our money. Cuffs went right back on! The identification was still shaky but combined with that statement each conviction was a snap. Or ofcourse the grand prize for stupidity: two girls in an elevator robbed a young mother by aiming a gun at her baby's head. The woman had no money but offered to write them a check made to cash but the two girls insisted on the woman writing their names on the check. Twenty minutes later at a near by check cashing service two very easy arrests were made.

Quote: konceptum

They will use tricks and lies to get you to say something you shouldn't.

If you were police chief and had some officers on your force that caught two crooks working together, and those cops didn't separate those two guys for their interviews and tell each that "the other guy is fingering you" even though this has not happened... well, as police chief you'd have to read them the riot act. That kind of manipulation [ok, lying] is absolutely essential for police work.

Guess how to avoid this manipulation?

Quote: odiousgambit

Guess how to avoid this manipulation?

There actually is a valid question about it. I'm not sure how much of it is real life and how much legal drama, but is it better to have separate lawyers each or one for both?
The way I heard is that while you're supposed to have separate lawyers, the better option is a shared lawyer, because it helps avoid a textbook case of Prisoner's Dilemma.

One prisoner was close mouthed until he over heard his interrogator step out into the hallway and chat with a cop about Harold. Not knowing they were discussing a fellow cop whose name happened to be Harold. The prisoner immediately confessed because he knew once his partner, Harold, was in custody Harold would rat him out but fast.

Often an attorney is prevented from representing people with conflicts simply because good representation of one is to to tell him to be the first to make the deal.

That's the dilemma, the best outcome for both parties is to keep quiet (in a realistic scenario the "low" penalty is indifferent), but the best EV for either without knowledge of the other party's actions is to make a deal.

Quote: P90

That's the dilemma, the best outcome for both parties is to keep quiet (in a realistic scenario the "low" penalty is indifferent), but the best EV for either without knowledge of the other party's actions is to make a deal.

Prisoner's Dilemna

When you watch COPS and they bust some black kid
for having a gun or dope on him, the kid always says
'thats not mine'. At first you think 'what an idiot', but
the black community has learned to never give the
police one bit of info they can use, because they will
use it against them. Make everything hard for them,
admit to nothing.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

The only thing I will add to this thread is there are bad people and sometimes bad cops, but don't for a minute sit there and try and paint everyone with the same brush. How simple minded, hypocritical, and lazy is that?

Quite so.

However, you must consider other things:

1) the police are part of the retaliatory arm of the state in the domestic realm.
2) as such, they work through the use of force.
3) such force includes threats, intimidation, lies and other forms of pressure both physical and psychological.
4) while I do believe most police officers want to find and charge the actual perpetrator, some just want to close the case and let things sort themselves out later.
5) police don't know who did what. Even if you're innocent, there may be evidence that incriminates you.

For all these reasons, you're better off having a lawyer present during police questioning.

Just think of the number of people in jail who have been cleared by DNA. And the number of DA's who fight the introduction of DNA to clear convicted people. That alone is reason to never ever volunteer any information !!

I think I heard this from a movie or something. Seems like great advice. Goes like this:

"Don't say ANYTHING. They have what they have (referring to any evidence). Nothing you say will change that."

Worse yet anything you say will be held against you. Every detail will be examined. And police are experts at testifying. Once they are convinced you are guilty, testimony will be custom tailored to convict you.
Like " He seemed to be over-reacting or he did not act like this was news to him, etc. Cops and detectives have testified 100's of times and know exactly what a judge or jury wants to hear to convict you .

Quote: buzzpaff

Worse yet anything you say will be held against you.
.

Good point. Its never 'anything you say might go in your
favor', its always that it will be held against you. They're
telling you to keep your mouth shut. Remember that the
cops want you to be guilty, they don't get brownie points
for arresting innocent people, it makes them look bad. So
they want to do what they can to hurt you, not help you.
Everybody is always out for themselves, something most
people forget.

Quote: WongBo

Prisoner's Dilemna

a more direct link

Quote: EvenBob

Good point. Its never 'anything you say might go in your
favor', its always that it will be held against you.

the you-tube videos maintain that police interviews that go well for you cannot be allowed as evidence. If this is so, then truly it is madness to participate in an interview

I believe in only 2 states do interviews have to be taped. Most times, the police will only start to tape after you have been worn down by hours of interrogation. I think if they show a tape in evidence, the judge and jury should have to sit there and watch the 18 or 20 hours leading up to what the DA wants you to believe.