Rights - Law professor speaks on exercising 5th amend rights

[Pointman]

imported post

+1 LEO, -1 Doug.

Most officers aren't jerks and are simply investigating to see if there might be a problem. Be nice to them and hope they're nice to you. (If you're a jerk, expect things to go downhill quickly.)

Officers are trained to take control verbally and sometimes overdo it. Take your time before answering (since you are being investigated), and don't let a bully intimidate you, but don't overdo it either. Bully officers usually have something to prove and have no problem doing it. File a complaint later. If you give them something to detain you for, they probably will. If you keep talking and say something that they can take the wrong way, expect to be arrested.

Again, most officers are good people--treat them as such, even if they're having a bad day.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Just like you hate cops with an attitude.. cops hate citizens with an attitude. And a citizen OCing with an attitude will be talked about and thus be lumped in a group wrongfully.

I don't understand how asserting your right to shut upis getting an "attitude".

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Just like you hate cops with an attitude.. cops hate citizens with an attitude. And a citizen OCing with an attitude will be talked about and thus be lumped in a group wrongfully.

I don't understand how asserting your right to shut upis getting an "attitude".

You have not met the people I have...

Have lunch with me and I will demonstrate... :lol:

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Many here give advise to say nothing as this may "provide evidence for your arrest" but if you have not broken any laws... it is very unlikely.

Not disagreeing, exactly, but the detainee is in something of a catch-22 here. MOST of the time, if you haven't broken any laws, explaining yourself to the officer is the quickest way to resolve the situation and get back about your business. But as the video clearly showed, in other cases, you're MUCH better off keeping your mouth shut.

The problem is that when you're stopped, you have no way of knowing which kind of situation you're in. Shutting your mouth when you should talk may result in some expense and inconvenience. Talking when you shouldn't may cost you a LOT of time and money, and may even land you in prison. The former is a lot more probable, but the latter is definitely possible.

And there is NO good course of action. Deciding to talk, like the average person would, may land you in hot water. Flat out refusing to talk may very well get you arrested. Trying to take a middle course by asking if you're free to go, what law you're suspected of breaking, etc., may help you make better decisions, but it will also get you labeled as having an "attitude". That might piss the officer off, and depending on the officer, may get you charged with something he invents -- polite refusal to talk may have been the better choice.

I guess the very BEST approach is simply to blend in and try to avoid coming to the attention of the police, for any reason. Unfortunately, that approach is inconsistent with asserting any rights that the masses have chosen not to care about.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

swillden wrote:

The problem is that when you're stopped, you have no way of knowing which kind of situation you're in. Shutting your mouth when you should talk may result in some expense and inconvenience. Talking when you shouldn't may cost you a LOT of time and money, and may even land you in prison. The former is a lot more probable, but the latter is definitely possible.

And there is NO good course of action. Deciding to talk, like the average person would, may land you in hot water. Flat out refusing to talk may very well get you arrested. Trying to take a middle course by asking if you're free to go, what law you're suspected of breaking, etc., may help you make better decisions, but it will also get you labeled as having an "attitude". That might piss the officer off, and depending on the officer, may get you charged with something he invents -- polite refusal to talk may have been the better choice.

I kind of like the "answer a question with a question" method of making conversation, when being absolutely silent seems awkward or confrontational, but even that has its problems.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Many here give advise to say nothing as this may "provide evidence for your arrest" but if you have not broken any laws... it is very unlikely.

I think the law prof blows this myth right out of the water.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Many here give advise to say nothing as this may "provide evidence for your arrest" but if you have not broken any laws... it is very unlikely.

I think the law prof blows this myth right out of the water.

Yes, I agree. I don't think you can both agree with what you saw in that video, LEO, and then make the above statement. It's either one or the other.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I kind of like the "answer a question with a question" method of making conversation, when being absolutely silent seems awkward or confrontational, but even that has its problems.

There is nothing wrong with asking a question if you have one.

But when you decline to give an answer and only present your ownquestion over and over. Do not expect to get anyanswers. It willabsolutely give the wrong impression and make you look like a smart ass.

It might cause the interviewer to ask the following. :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Many here give advise to say nothing as this may "provide evidence for your arrest" but if you have not broken any laws... it is very unlikely.

I think the law prof blows this myth right out of the water.

What myth are you talking about? I am speaking from experience.

Are you saying that if you have not broken any laws that you are very likely to be arrested?

Remember the keyword here.... "unlikely." I am not saying that opening your mouth would not get you arrested. You could be stopped for one thing and slip up admitting you are carrying a ounce of cocaine.

Duh!! You are going to probably get arrested. I can say that I have not arrested anyone I talked to that was not a suspect in a crime. But if you are out with your family and asked about a robbery suspect that may have ran by.... are you really going to say nothing?

I guess if you fear that your saying you say him will get you arrested for being an accomplice or something.. OK. But I find it silly.

The attorney was geared more toward a suspect being interviewed and touched on how other people can implicate themselves in a crime.

Remember this... He does not watch the interviews... he hears the defendant's version on what happened in the encounter. And all defendants to him are innocent clientswho tell no lies. :lol:

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Duh!! You are going to probably get arrested. I can say that I have not arrested anyone I talked to that was not a suspect in a crime. But if you are out with your family and asked about a robbery suspect that may have ran by.... are you really going to say nothing?

Well, there's a difference between a police officer asking for assistance and a police officer who is asking about my own business. The former will get a polite conversation, the latter will get my name and not much else.

Just this morning a FFx Co. policewoman knocked on my front door and asked me if I knew anyone in my neighborhood who had two children, ages 4 or 5, because the police had the two kids and they were lost. I tried to think but I couldn't help her, and we had a short but polite conversation. I have no problem with that.

Now if, on the other hand, she had started asking me where I was the other night, did I own a gun, mind if I step inside to talk with you for a moment etc., the answer would have been, "Sorry, but I'd rather not answer any questions at this time, and I cannot invite you inside at this time, either." Clearly, this type of encounter is a potential investigation of me and my business.

You're talking about two different types of encounters, LEO.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Prior to adjudication all are presumed innocent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

I was talking about their being honest about the interview and acting all innocent with the attorney.

DADH

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Snipped.....
You're talking about two different types of encounters, LEO.

Nobody has clarified this that I know of. It has always been.. If asked a question.. keep your mouth shut!!!

Even the attorney was saying to not say anything. But to me I feel he was speaking more towards someone suspected of a crime.

But as I said... I have spoke to many people who were possible suspects and the encounter was very brief and they went about their business and I focused on getting the right person.

If someone clams up and says nothing... this is going to cause the LEO to stay with him longer while the bad guy gains distance. The LEO only needs to determine you are not the guy. As I said... you did not commit the crime the LEO is not interested in you.

 

[asforme]

imported post

LEO 229, I don't remember if it was you or not but I remember someone on this board saying that when they suspected someone of something they would walk up and give a false description of someone they were looking for and see the reaction from the suspect.

The point is we as citizens have no way of knowing whether or not we are under investigation because LEOs can and do lie to us. Furthermore the cop could be fishing for something, for example the cop seems friendly and simply responding to a call and is discussing OC with me. Until today I was not aware that I cannot carry in a school zone without a permit. Now I know better, but assuming I didn't, by innocently answering a question reguarding where I have been traveling as police often ask on a traffic stop, I could accidently admit to comitting a federal crime.

Attitude or not, saying nothing certainly seems like the safe choice.

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Are you saying that if you have not broken any laws that you are very likely to be arrested?

I'm saying that whether or not you have broken any laws, talking to a police officer will greatly increase your chances of getting arrested. It won't everhelp you (unless your goal in life is to be thought well of by strangers with badges, and even then it might not help).

Remember the keyword here.... "unlikely." I am not saying that opening your mouth would not get you arrested. You could be stopped for one thing and slip up admitting you are carrying a ounce of cocaine.

Once again, this is a non sequitur. We're not talking here about a guilty person "slipping up." Assuming you are innocent, it is an even worse idea to talk to police.

Besides, as the professor said, NO PERSON ON THIS PLANET, can say with certainty that they have never broken a law because there are so many of them nowdays. His example really hit home.Too many lawslaws breeds disrespect and contempt for the law itself, and the USA is no exception.

I guess if you fear that your saying you say him will get you arrested for being an accomplice or something.. OK. But I find it silly.

The memor exercise done at the beginning of the video answers your question. Not to mention, as you yourself have said, LEO 229, everyone is a suspect to you. You have said on thisvery message board that youassume that everyone is guilty of something and just hasn't been caught yet. That kind of us-versus-them mentality of modern police is exactly why I wouldn't talk even if it was an investigation for another crime.

Remember this... He does not watch the interviews... he hears the defendant's version on what happened in the encounter. And all defendants to him are innocent clientswho tell no lies. :lol:

I strongly doubt that. I'm not a professional defense attorney and even I have seen at least 20 interviews in my life (all on videotape of course).

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

asforme wrote:

LEO 229, I don't remember if it was you or not but I remember someone on this board saying that when they suspected someone of something they would walk up and give a false description of someone they were looking for and see the reaction from the suspect.

The point is we as citizens have no way of knowing whether or not we are under investigation because LEOs can and do lie to us. Furthermore the cop could be fishing for something, for example the cop seems friendly and simply responding to a call and is discussing OC with me. Until today I was not aware that I cannot carry in a school zone without a permit. Now I know better, but assuming I didn't, by innocently answering a question reguarding where I have been traveling as police often ask on a traffic stop, I could accidently admit to comitting a federal crime.

Attitude or not, saying nothing certainly seems like the safe choice.

Bingo

Plus, as I said before, no person who knows what they're talking about can say with confidence that they aren't breaking a law. In the insanity that is modern America, not even a laywer can know all, most or even a significant portion of the law. They spew out of the federal government on a daily basis like water out of a sewer pipe.

I'll keep my mouth shut. There's no way it can hurt me.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

asforme wrote:

LEO 229, I don't remember if it was you or not but I remember someone on this board saying that when they suspected someone of something they would walk up and give a false description of someone they were looking for and see the reaction from the suspect.

The point is we as citizens have no way of knowing whether or not we are under investigation because LEOs can and do lie to us. Furthermore the cop could be fishing for something, for example the cop seems friendly and simply responding to a call and is discussing OC with me. Until today I was not aware that I cannot carry in a school zone without a permit. Now I know better, but assuming I didn't, by innocently answering a question reguarding where I have been traveling as police often ask on a traffic stop, I could accidently admit to comitting a federal crime.

Attitude or not, saying nothing certainly seems like the safe choice.

I do not recall saying that. Not something I normally do either.

 

[unrequited]

imported post

Great video, and great viewpoints in this thread too... LEO229, next lunch we have I'll be using handsignals. > )

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

unrequited wrote:

Great video, and great viewpoints in this thread too... LEO229, next lunch we have I'll be using handsignals. > )

You going to be flipping me off? :lol:

I see unapproved equipment on a Subaru!!

 

[rmodel65]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Michigander wrote:

I can't watch those shows because of how unrealistic they are. Cops simply are not that emotionally involved in their jobs. Those shows are soap operas, and I despise any form of soap opera.

As for the confessions and talking, you'd have to be uninformed or an idiot to talk to the police if you think they have anything on you. Detectives are manipulative liars, and they are really good at pushing buttons.

I can agree with everything you said.

The police are allowed to lie and I have done it to get the bad guy to confess.

As a public servant, do you not find that to be unethical? Does your department have a code of ethics?

NO!!

and

The courts allow the police to lie during interviews so this has nothing to do with department regulations on ethics. The police cannot lie on reports or in court.

But it perfectly acceptable to lie during an interview with a bad guy who IS going to lie to you. It keeps things fair.

Think about it this way... if the police had to tell the truth... a bad guy could demand to know what evidence they had on him. The police would be required to tell him the "truth" andwhen he determines what they have he would know they had nothing and walk out.

that what discovery is just goes through the solicitor/ da etc instead