So if you ask for an attorney, cops will often tell you that asking for a lawyer is the same as admitting your guilt. Or worse, that they would have been willing to work with you, but now that you’re asking for legal help they’re not interested in helping you any more. It’s all a lie!
Full Answer
In the US, the police do not need to provide you with an attorney when you ask them to. They do need to stop any custodial questioning.
And it must be respected. If you are arrested, ask for an attorney, and the police ignore your request and keep interrogating you, can that situation be leveraged, or should you keep asking for an attorney and refuse to say anything else (assume the conversation is recorded)? Under Miranda v.
There is rarely anything one can say during a police interview (with or without an attorney present) that will be helpful at trial. The reality is that anything you say in a police interview is more likely to hurt you than help you. If an attorney wants to know things from their client, they will ask the client.
On the other hand, here are the things you should never say to a police officer. Not all lies by police officers are permissible, however. For example, a police officer isn’t allowed to identify himself as a member of the clergy in order to obtain a confession from a suspect. Nor is a police officer allowed to lie about how the legal system works.
The trouble here is that, in the process of trying to help the police, you may be putting yourself into a situation that gives the police evidence against you. There are too many unknown factors for you.
If you have not been arrested and are just being interviewed, the police are under no obligation to remind you that you have the right to remain silent, or that you have the right to an attorney.
You do not have to, nor should you ever, talk to the police if you are a suspect or a possible suspect in the commission of a crime. Below are some of the objections I hear clients make when I advise them not to talk to the police, followed by how I would likely answer those objections.
The fact that you refused to talk to the police cannot be used against you. In talking to the police, you could unwittingly say something that gives them reason to think you are guilty, or gives them additional evidence that they can use to officially charge you with a crime.
Believe it or not, you may not even know if you are innocent of violating some law. You cannot be expected to know all of the laws that are on the books. We’ve often heard it said, and it is true, that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” for breaking the law. If the police are asking to talk to you, there is a good possibility that they believe you have broken a law, and they may have evidence to support their belief. However, they don’t have to tell you that before or during their interview.
The third is that the burden of proof that you committed a criminal offense is on prosecutor. You never have the burden of proving that you are innocent. You have special protections under the law and do not have to tell them anything.
Always hire a lawyer before talking to the police. The lawyers of Dearie, Fischer & Mathews can help you get more information about your case and can talk to the police for you. We have a great deal of experience talking with the police departments in Lebanon, Beavercreek, and the surrounding areas: Warren, Montgomery, Butler and Greene Counties, and all of southwest Ohio.
If a policer officer tells you that they found your DNA at the scene of the crime, they may not necessarily be telling the truth—and that's perfectly within their rights. Time and time again this issue has come up in court cases—and every time it does, the judges ultimately side with the cops, noting that deliberate deception is fair game so long as it's not likely to produce a false confession.
This is thanks to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which, as Florida public defender Howard Finkelstein notes, "protects you against self-incrimination.". 13. The police aren't required to read you your rights if you aren't being detained. Shutterstock.
Regardless of what you might see on TV, police officers can't actually burst into your home unless they either A. have a warrant or B. have received your express consent to do so. However, as Scharff Law Firm in Raleigh, North Carolina, points out, there are a few exceptions to this rule.
Regardless of which state you're in, keep in mind that you are never obligated to identify yourself to an officer if they have no reason to suspect you of committing a crime.
Remember that anything you say to an officer can and will be held against you in a court of law.
In Alabama, for instance, the law states that a sheriff or any other officer of the law can "stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions." But over in Maryland, an officer can only ask for identification if they believe that a person "may be wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun."
You are legally allowed to film and photograph police officers. Shutterstock. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Connecticut notes that as long as you are in an outdoor public space or on private property with the owner's permission, a police officer cannot command you not to photograph or film them. 8.
If a police officer approaches you and asks questions, ask them if you’re free to leave. If you’re free to leave, you’re not under arrest (yet), and you have no obligation to remain and answer questions. If you’re not free to leave, then you’re in custody, in which case, you shouldn’t be speaking or doing anything without consulting a lawyer.
There are big consequences associated with lying to a police officer, including being prosecuted for obstruction of justice, which is a felony. But police officers can lie to civilians and do so routinely. For example, undercover police officers don’t have to admit they’re police officers even if you ask. Police officers can lie to you about having evidence against you. They can even lie to you about why they’re questioning you. In fact, lying in order to solve a crime is an integral part of police training and procedure. On the other hand, here are the things you should never say to a police officer.
When a journalist promises what you’re saying will be off the record, you should feel confident you won’t be reading what you said in tomorrow’s newspaper. But when a police officer tells you what you’re saying is “off-the-record,” they’re lying. Everything’s on the record. Everything you say can and will be used against you. In fact, if they haven’t already warned you as such, they will…when they arrest you. Until then, they have no obligation to warn you of your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney.
The goal of an interview is to obtain information . By contrast, an interrogation is an accusatory process, whose goal is eliciting a confession. Unless you’ve been arrested already, a police officer has no reason to tell you what sort of conversation you’re having, but you can assume you’re being interrogated if the conversation isn’t so much a series of questions and answers as a monologue by the police officer.
The job of a police officer is to enforce the law —not to be your friend. However, police officers are trained to use friendliness to elicit information. By engaging you in friendly chit-chat, a police officer can ascertain information not only about you but also about your community.
If the police show up at your door without a warrant (either search or arrest), you don’ t have to invite them in. You don’t even have to talk to them, and you can ask them to leave. In fact, criminal lawyers advise that you don’t speak to them and ask them to leave.
The beverage they’re offering you may be a ruse. The police can’t make you submit to a DNA test without a warrant. But that doesn’t mean they can’t offer you a glass of water while you’re sitting in a hot, stuffy investigation room and then obtain your DNA from the cup you drank from after you toss it in the trash.
Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, ...
However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others.
In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”#N#(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car , or even your home . The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others.
Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”.
For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others.
Most departmental policies state something similar to the following: an officer is legally authorized to discharge a firearm when confronted with an imminent deadly threat, or to prevent and/or stop a deadly felony. That being said, shooting is a very precise and accurate activity.
If you elect to exchange information with the other driver, as opposed to obtaining a police report, you should obtain, at a minimum, the following information: Driver license number. Driver’s name. Driver’s date of birth. Driver’s phone number. Vehicle license plate number.
Cops and Firefighters are like brothers and sisters. When times are good and nothing bad is happening, we enjoy a sibling rivalry that involves jabs, practical jokes, and a bit of hazing. But when times are tough and lives are on the line, there is no one I’d rather trust my life with than a trained firefighter. Have there been instances that have resulted in increased tension between our occupations? Yes. But we both fall under the first responder umbrella, and I’d do anything I could to protect those men and women riding on that annoying, loud red engine.
I get asked this question quite a bit, actually. If someone is injured, unlicensed, or uninsured, I would recommend calling the police to come take a traffic collision report. If only property damage is involved, you are not legally required to contact the police to generate a traffic collision report. If you elect to exchange information with the other driver, as opposed to obtaining a police report, you should obtain, at a minimum, the following information: 1 Driver license number 2 Driver’s name 3 Driver’s date of birth 4 Driver’s phone number 5 Vehicle license plate number 6 Vehicle make, model and color 7 Driver’s insurance company and policy number
The point of traffic enforcement is to modify behavior. It is about encouraging the motoring public to safely operate motor vehicles in hopes to decrease traffic accidents and fatalities.
Absolutely yes! It is extremely disheartening to hear political “leaders” suggest that police departments do not take crimes seriously, simply based on the location of the crime. This claim is most often done for personal and political gain. Even more disheartening is that the public, with the assistance of the media, believes this falsehood. Police officers don’t get to choose which crimes to investigate, and which crimes we can file as “unsolved.” In all honesty, it is our goal to solve any crime placed in front of us. If I can link in an earlier question, solving crimes is more of a gauge of an officer’s productivity and ability than the number of citation he or she issues.
Even more disheartening is that the public, with the assistance of the media, believes this falsehood. Police officers don’t get to choose which crimes to investigate, and which crimes we can file as “unsolved.”. In all honesty, it is our goal to solve any crime placed in front of us.
It's not the victim's decision whether or not to press charges. That decision belongs to the DA. Often, the DA will take the victim's wishes into account in making that decision, but not always.
Yes, but the longer they wait the less likely the police will believe you.
The simple answer is, Yes. The victim of crime always has the right to bring charges and if the police can substantiate the charge with the evidence and the statute of limitations on bringing the charge has not elapsed, then it can be initiated. Report Abuse. Report Abuse.
The person can change their mind but that doesn't mean the prosecutor has to dismiss the charges. The local prosecutor can continue with the case and if you don' t cooperate you can be held in contempt of court and probably jailed.
Yes, and the police/DA often encourage them to prosecute. In cases where the crime is significant, such as assault, robbery or rape, the authorities will often prosecute even if the victim doesn't want them to crime to.
Yes. However, the police have the discretion of bringing charges or not, and may consider that the person first refused to press charges.
Yes, that person can change their mind and as often as they want. Just keep in mind that when that happens, the police and prosecutor may be less inclined to believe you or wish to follow through with the charges. In the end however, it is always up to the prosecutor and the prosecutor alone on whether or not to pursue criminal charges.