[Brendinooo]

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect.

While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved.

So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do:

1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case

2. I talk, and it screws me

3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved

4. I don't talk, and it screws me

I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!

[Maxatar]

If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.

[mcmcmc]

Not everyone has attorney money.

[sixothree]

Being poor means being powerless in every situation that might arise.

[onraglanroad]

Do you not live in a country where they are obliged to provide one?

[hoppyhoppy2]

In the U.S. that applies to criminal defendants, not to people who witnessed a crime and aren't being charged with anything at the moment.

[onraglanroad]

Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different.

Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?

[nobody9999]

>Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different.

>Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?

No. You always have the right to legal representation -- at your own expense and, in criminal cases, depending on your financial situation, a court-appointed attorney. In many places, the state will only provide an attorney if you're indigent -- and can prove it.

The Miranda Warning[0] (not Miranda "Rights") is generally required if you're being arrested and/or detained for "questioning."

However. the rights mentioned in those warnings (right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) don't magically appear when the warnings are given. They apply regardless of whether or not the warnings are given -- whether you're a suspect, a witness or the object of a police officer's lustful desires, etc.

What's more, the police are legally allowed to lie to you (e.g., "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon." to get you to waive your rights).

As I understand the primary change over the past 20 years or so is that if you don't positively, verbally/in writing unequivocally invoke your rights to remain silent and have an attorney present, the police may ignore less unequivocal assertions.

N.B. IANAL.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

[AnimalMuppet]

When I'm not a suspect? No, I don't think that I do.

[onraglanroad]

That's the bit that sounds odd. Surely they can't just claim you're not a suspect yet and therefore deny you a lawyer?

[AnimalMuppet]

Deny me one? No. (I mean, they may try...)

What I meant, though, is that if I'm not a suspect, they don't have to provide me a lawyer. (At least, I'm moderately sure that's the law.)

[nobody9999]

>That's the bit that sounds odd. Surely they can't just claim you're not a suspect yet and therefore deny you a lawyer?

IIUC, In a non-custodial situation, they are not required to provide the Miranda Warning[0]. However, the rights mentioned in that warning exist and are in force regardless of your status (custodial/non-custodial). One may invoke them at any time. I recommend doing so loudly if you're within two or three meters of law enforcement.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

[mattnewton]

I recommend watching the video, he makes an IMO excellent case that #1 without a lawyer really is a bad idea. You can still help solve the case in way that protects you, the stakes here are often incredibly high.

[digitalPhonix]

The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible

[sillystuff]

But, 4 is possible.

After Salinas v Texas, you must positively assert that you are exercising your right to silence, not simply remain silent.

The prosecutor in a murder trial argued, at trial, that silence of the defendant (during police questioning) was evidence of his guilt. The supreme court in Salinas v Texas allowed this.

* The defendant also selectively answered some questions, so perhaps there is nuance, but to be safe, a positive assertion of right to remain silent seems prudent.

IANAL, and would love if an actual lawyer would comment on this.

[jfengel]

Convicting you of a crime is not possible. But there are many, many ways in which you can be screwed, from forcing you to spend a weekend in jail to having a prosecutor offer you a plea deal that you can't risk refusing.

The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you.

The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.

[Brendinooo]

The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?

[digitalPhonix]

If they wanted to do that, your chances of "I talk, and it screws me" are pretty high anyway.

Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half)

He wouldn't talk to police.

[cryptonector]

Losing days is better than losing decades.

[thayne]

It absolutely is. In theory, staying silent or getting a lawyer shouldn't hurt you in court. But it could lead to the police focusing their investigation on you and/or making your life difficult.

[nobody9999]

>It absolutely is. In theory, staying silent or getting a lawyer shouldn't hurt you in court. But it could lead to the police focusing their investigation on you and/or making your life difficult.

This is addressed explicitly and at length in the video linked in TFA.

[UncleMeat]

Don't worry. If the lawyers prosecuting you illegally point out your silence as suspicious to the jury, the supreme court can just decide that actually this didn't impact the jury enough so your conviction stands. Great country we live in /s.

[Spooky23]

4 doesn't really happen, unless you're a mandated reporter and don't report child abuse.

I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't.

The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know."

Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap.

At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.

[Brendinooo]

>I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.

Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?

[Spooky23]

He was a bystander who stuck around and tried to do the right thing. The people charged decided to go to trial and now he’s on the hook to show up and answer stupid questions under oath.

The objective of the defense is likely to have him not show up.

[lIl-IIIl]

Isn't that the system working as expected? Presumably a more just outcome is more likely because of your colleague's testimony.

[Brendinooo]

I mean...if the correct outcome is rendered and the fact that he stuck around to help and went to court to testify about it is part of the reason why...why would you portray that as something negative?

[cucumber3732842]

Because he offered some info that made it into the report and years later some guy they had reviewing the fifteen dozen reports relating to that insurance fraud saw that info and said "let's get that guy on the stand, a jury will eat that shit up".

[apothegm]

“Irish goodbye”?

[sufficientsoup]

Leave without announcing your departure

[Arainach]

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

[SoftTalker]

You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.

[buellerbueller]

if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?

Your position is just bonkers.

[bryanlarsen]

Because cops are human, and most people answer questions when cops ask them questions. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you in court, but it certainly often is in the minds of humans. And when a cop has "evidence" against you that they cannot use in court, that's when it seems likely they'll manufacture some evidence that is usable.

[buellerbueller]

Cops being human is also exactly why the lawyer and detective in the video is exactly why never talk to cops.

Real lawyer opinion > armchair lawyer opinion.

[jfengel]

If they don't have it out for you to start with, answering their questions can get you out of it. If they pull you over and you just answer their questions, the odds are that they will just send you on your way, eventually.

But if you start invoking your rights and they think you have something to hide, they can easily find an excuse. "I smelled alcohol" is a popular one. If you refuse the test, they can invoke the smell of alcohol as an excuse to bring you in. They will eventually let you go, but that's days rather than minutes.

Police will correctly tell you that they don't want to harass you and it is much easier to simply answer their questions if you have nothing to hide. You don't have to, and most of the time they'll still just let you go as long as you comply with the actual orders. But it's not a guarantee.

[buellerbueller]

You make up a ton of hypotheticals to support your point, versus a lawyer and a retired detective (video in the link) who tell you explicitly to never talk to cops.

[SoftTalker]

Neither of whom are disinterested. The lawyer wants you to hire him to talk to the cops for you, and the retired cop is earning money by giving his "don't talk to the cops" speeches.

[SoftTalker]

Every interaction I've had with the cops has been something like:

Cop: I pulled you over for speeding. May I have your license and registration please.

Me: (Hands over documents)

Cop: Where are you headed tonight?

Me: On my way home

Cop: Have you been drinking tonight?

Me: No sir.

Cop: walks back to his car, does whatever they do, comes back with either a ticket (which, honestly, I deserve) or a warning.

That's not to say there's never a situation where remaining silent and lawyering up is your best move, but I do not see how refusing to answer these questions or blustering about "my rights" is going to result in any better outcome in a typical roadside traffic stop.

[cryptonector]

If you're heading home then he'll want to know where from. Oh, a restaurant? Did you have anything to drink? I smell alcohol! Step of the car please. That's one way it can go, and then he can say you were wobbly on your step and now it's a DUI. People have gone to prison for DUIs where they blew a 0.0. You really have to gauge whether the cop is having a bad day and taking it out on you, then figure out how to best respond. I've had very little experience with this, so I can't quite tell you, but you'd want a lawyer's response anyways.

[pseudalopex]

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[buellerbueller]

Brosky: I called them no names. I referred to their argument as bonkers...

[pseudalopex]

The quoted guideline covered your false separation. The discouraged example called a statement idiotic.

[cucumber3732842]

>if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for?

A huge amount of police work is vibes based "this guy looks sketchy, let's wait for him to do something and check him out" stuff. If you talk, they decide there's nothing to see here, move on.

If you don't talk in a clumsy way they decide you're up to no good and pull every trick in the book to get you. And they have plenty of tricks to construe the situation to their favor once they go down that path.

You absolutely can escalate what could've been a warning or simple ticket into a full fledged drug dog fake hit type stop by being obtuse. Or in the case of a real investigation escalate a "this ain't are guy" into a "put them on the short list and really go over them" (which you hope comes to nothing, but still).

>Your position is just bonkers.

Your position is just ignorant.

[onraglanroad]

In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not.

Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.

[treis]

You can absolutely talk your way out of situations. Jeffery Dalhmer infamously convinced cops that his drugged victim was his boyfriend and they let him go. Probably not going to be able to do that after you're booked and in jail.

I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I dare say that Dahmer is an atypical example. If you are a serial killer and the police catch you, then it's well worth a gamble to try to talk your way out of it. Even if they try to fabricate evidence, it's likely not going to be as bad as what you've actually been doing.

[cucumber3732842]

Exactly. You have to remember you're not just interacting with a faceless legal system, you're interacting with a human cop. There's some nuance to it. I've talked god knows how many fishing stops down to 5min papers checks. I'd still rather have not had them, but better than if I'd have been all "officer, I have a right to remain silent" which likely would've resulted in a whole bunch of hoopla, bringing the dog around to find nothing, etc, etc, all for a petty fine.

If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.

[lwansbrough]

If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify.

Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.

[Capricorn2481]

> If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment

If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.

[retsibsi]

I'm not in the US, so maybe things are very different here, but I still wonder if the absolutist advice is helpful in situations like this:

One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again.

Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.

[onraglanroad]

It definitely depends on the country. I live in Scotland and I've been perfectly happy to chat with police officers but if I'm taken in for questioning (which in Scotland is an arrest) I would have no hesitation in asking for a solicitor and they would probably advise no comment on every question.

If I want to help them out I would then prepare a written statement, approved by my solicitor, and give them that.

It's just the sensible way to go.

There's no rush. Take your time and be smart.

[lwansbrough]

You are detained any time your freedom of movement is interrupted. If a cop calls to you and you turn to face them, that’s a detainment. So you’re correct, you can be detained before they’ve even questioned you.

[wat10000]

"Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.

[lwansbrough]

This sounds obvious but a lot of people don’t understand this.