In general, you do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even if you do not feel free to walk away from the officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer a question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions.
Full Answer
Once you say that you want to talk to a lawyer, officers should stop asking you questions. If they continue to ask questions, you still have the right to remain silent. If you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak to one before answering questions. If you do have a lawyer, keep his or her business card with you.
And the police are unlikely to even bother continuing to interview a suspect with an attorney present because, unlike in the movies and television, they know that the lawyer is just going to tell their client not to say anything. In fact, once the suspect informs the police that they will answer no more questions without an attor
If the point you are trying to make is what happens to police officers when they refuse to do their jobs due to moral grounds, the answer would be that he/she would be disciplined in some manner. The exception if course is if they were instructed to do something illegal, that would be an unlawful order.
If you do not have a lawyer, you may still tell the officer you want to speak to one before answering questions. If you do have a lawyer, keep his or her business card with you. Show it to the officer, and ask to call your lawyer.
Law enforcement officers work tirelessly to ensure that individuals are following the law. They too, however, need to follow the laws governing police officers.
The three main constitutional rules a police officer must follow are the: 4th Amendment. 5th Amendment. 6th Amendment. The police cannot use such evidence in your criminal case if they violate these constitutional rights. A criminal defense lawyer can argue that police violated your constitutional provisions and prevent evidence from being used in ...
It is important to keep in mind that, in most cases, law enforcement is only speaking to you to elicit the information they want, and they are permitted to tell lies about certain things in order to attempt to make you incriminate yourself.
If police violate your 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment Rights, then the court can suppress the evidence. This means the court will not use the evidence due to the doctrines known as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and the Exclusionary Rule.
If an individual is subject to a custodial interrogation, they are required to affirmatively request an attorney by stating, “I want a lawyer.” It is very important to be aware that merely inquiring whether an individual should speak to an attorney or stating that they think they need an attorney or another type of less affirmative response will not be considered an invocation of their rights.
Everybody has a constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches or seizures under the 4th Amendment. But, most people don’t understand how to exercise this right or that you can refuse a police officer’s request.
A law enforcement officer is permitted to search an individual’s vehicle, come inside their home, or look in their bag when the individual consents to the search. Many individuals simply say yes without realizing they have just given up a very important right.
That doesn't mean, however, that you have to follow the attorney's instruction. The Constitution does not forbid you to talk to a person just because that person has an attorney, or just because the attorney tells you not to do it.
A criminal suspect's lawyer is only doing his job when he calls you during your investigation or after his client's arrest and "instructs" you not to discuss the case with his client unless the lawyer is present. That doesn't mean, however, that you have to follow the attorney's instruction. The Constitution does not forbid you to talk ...
Although neither Miranda nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibits police interrogation of a willing suspect merely because his attorney has informed police his or her client is not to be questioned, some jurisdictions may have statutory rules restricting such contacts. Officers should consult local prosecutors or legal advisers to determine the existence and application of any such statutes.
Said the court, "The defendant may waive the Sixth Amendment right, whether or not he is already represented by counsel; the decision to waive need not itself be counseled. And when a defendant is read his Miranda rights and agrees to waive those rights, that typically does the trick.". (Montejo v. Louisiana)
Instead, the law focuses on whether the suspect is willing to talk without his or her attorney present. Although this is a well established principle dating back at least a quarter of a century, some officers and attorneys (and some judges) still experience uncertainty and nervousness about police interrogation of a represented suspect.
In another case, the Supreme Court held that even after a suspect is arrested and has been arraigned and has counsel appointed, he can still be approached by police, in the absence of counsel and without any notice to counsel, to see if he is willing to discuss the case.
Police did not tell the lawyer that Burbine was suspected in the Providence murder, or that he was about to be questioned in that case. They also did not tell Burbine a lawyer had phoned on his behalf. Instead, Providence officers gave Burbine a Miranda warning, obtained his waiver, and conducted an interrogation, ...
General Rules When Speaking with Police Officers. Here are some general rules and factors to consider before or when speaking to police officers. (Also know that being respectful and staying calm can go a long way. The less uneventful your interaction is, the better.) Understand consent.
If you have questions regarding your rights when speaking to the police, contact a criminal defense attorney. An attorney can help you understand your rights, how to best protect them, and if needed, argue to suppress (exclude) any evidence obtained in violation of your rights.
The police officer's job—besides protecting and serving the public—is to make arrests. In fact, some police officers are tasked with "arrest goals" or "arrest quotas" that they are expected to achieve each week. When a police officer stops you on the street, in your car, or even knocks on your door at home, chances are good ...
If a police officer comes to your residence and wants to question you, you don't have to let the officer in or answer any questions. You don't have to consent to any searches unless the officer has a search warrant or can justify the search on an emergency basis, as explained below. Plain view.
If you do agree to answer a police officer's question or submit to search, keep two things in mind: you can always withdraw your consent if you don't want to continue, and there is no "off the record" when you provide information to the police. The police also don't have to inform you that your consent is optional. Providing I.D.
No "Miranda" needed. If a police officer has not taken you into custody or prevented you from leaving, the officer can ask you questions without reciting your Miranda rights. The information you provide can be used against you. Miranda rights must be read to a person only when the person is being interrogated and is in custody (not free to walk away).
Searching the car. During a routine traffic stop, the officer cannot search your car unless the officer has a warrant or a "reasonable belief" that weapons or other evidence of a crime is in the car and the occupants might destroy the contraband.
If you are arrested, remain silent except for asking for an attorney. A criminal defense attorney can help you determine if the cops did anything illegal. Your attorney also assists you in formulating a defense strategy that may result in a dismissal of charges and compensation for damages if the police officer is guilty of misconduct or wrongdoing.
If a police officer is guilty of domestic violence, hit and run, or any other crime, a judge can sentence the officer to the same punishments as you face.
The exclusionary rule prohibits prosecutors from using evidence obtained during an unlawful or false arrest against a defendant in court. Without that evidence, there may not be a valid case against the person.
Because the officer did not have probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, the officer violated the person’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, false arrests can also violate a person’s Fourteenth ...
If you believe your Constitutional rights were violated or a police officer is guilty of misconduct, contact a criminal defense attorney. Arguing with a police officer or resisting arrest can give an officer probable cause for the arrest. Police are permitted to pat you down to ensure that you are not carrying a dangerous weapon.
Arresting a person is a powerful tool for law enforcement. Arrests are made when a person is suspected of committing a crime. However, some officers misuse arrests for various reasons.
Police misconduct includes a wide variety of actions that law enforcement officers may use during an investigation, encounters with citizens, or arrest. Surveillance abuse, planting evidence, racial profiling, excessive force, corruption, false imprisonment, and assault are just a few more examples of illegal acts committed by police officers.
An officer generally cannot arrest someone simply for refusing to answer questions, particularly if they are of a potentially incriminating nature.
As a general practice, if it is unclear to someone whether they are under arrest or not, they should seek clarification before speaking with the police. If they are not under arrest, they may inquire as to whether they can leave.
Instead, if one is not read their rights, then any evidence obtained from the suspect prior to being advised of their Miranda Rights may be inadmissible as evidence at trial.
For example, if someone is stopped on the street and blurts out an admission before being arrested, that admission is admissible because the person was not yet in custody and no Miranda Warning was yet mandated.
Miranda Rights (or more accurately, a Miranda Warning) were made part of the common vernacular after the US Supreme Court of Miranda v. Arizona. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that suspects must be advised of their rights, most particularly the right against self-incrimination and the right to legal representation, before an officer can begin interrogating a suspect. The Miranda Rights are probably familiar to most anyone who has ever seen a police show or movie:
Attorneys can help their clients avoid these pitfalls. If you or someone you know has been arrested it is important to speak with an attorney as soon as possible.
It does not matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on the street, or in the back seat of a car; if the person being questioned is in police custody (i.e., is not free to leave at any time), the police must read that person his or her Miranda Rights if they want to use that person's responses as evidence at trial.