| > what exactly happens if and when the cop agrees to this? I don't believe they are obligated to provide you with a lawyer. A court is obligated to do this; the police aren't. The point of this advice is to make sure that you don't say anything to the police, or -- if you do -- to get it thrown out of court. Because of some bad precedent, you need to make the statement that you do not wish to answer their questions as explicit as possible. You actually don't need to request a lawyer, but doing so has some beneficial effects. What happens? The police may ignore your expressed desire to remain silent and continue questioning you. If you are resistant to social pressure, this doesn't matter. If you aren't, you may keep answering them. Your answers should be inadmissible in court. They may not be, based on some potential arguments by the police: - We didn't understand that he wanted to remain silent. His wording was too confusing. (This is why the advice here tells you to use the words "remain silent".) - We stopped the interview, but then we started another one and he spoke to us willingly. That second point is much harder for them to argue if you expressed that you did not wish to speak to them without benefit of counsel. There is no clear line to draw between the end of one interview and the beginning of a second interview after the interviewee has had a change of heart. but it is in fact obvious to the police, even in the eyes of the court, that once you've said "I will not speak to you without the advice of a lawyer", a second interview begun before you've had the opportunity to speak to a lawyer is illegitimate. |
It's also important to phrase it as a declarative sentence (including the correct inflections) and be sure of what you say. If you preface it with "maybe I should..." or "can I have a lawyer?", you are not asserting your right and police are free to continue to questioning you.
I learned all I know about the law from the internet, so it's worth what you paid me to hear it. IANAL