> Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they aren't on your side. They want to nail you. That's all they care about. They have a job to do. That job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So they're gonna do that. Don't help them do that. Save your ammunition for trial. My jury ended up laughing at the prosecutor and the investigating officer in the trial.
Beware this advice can vary from country to country. In England and Wales for example if you don't say something to the police that you later rely on for your defense that can be used against you e.g. they ask 'why was your boot full of weapons and where were you heading?' you stay silent then later state in court 'it was my brother's car, he asked me to drive it to a friend's house and pick him up, I didn't think to check in the boot' they could perhaps infer you'd taken some time to concoct a false story which is why you didn't answer the question initially however the rules are complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an.... You do have the right for a duty solicitor to attend an interview who can advise you on prudent things to say and where you should stay silent.
EDIT: Initially said this applied to the whole UK, actually only England and Wales (from the linked Wikipedia page) uncertain about Scotland & Northern Ireland.
> You actually shouldn't even say anything to the cops.
Unless you're in the UK, in which case: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
> Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence.
Don't sit silent. Tell them, "I don't understand my legal rights in this situation so I wish to retain counsel before we talk further." Just repeat that as necessary.
> I believe that in the UK, Canada, Australia you have the right to remain silent
In Australia, not always true. You have no right to remain silent if questioned by an Examiner of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), a rather Star Chamber-esque federal law enforcement agency tasked with investigating terrorism, organised crime and other “major crimes” (a rather ill-defined category; pretty much any murder investigation could be given that label if they wanted to, although most murders wouldn’t interest them.) However, while they can force you to answer questions, they aren’t directly allowed to use your answers to prosecute you (but they can use them to prosecute other people, and they may be able to use them against you indirectly, if your answer leads them to discovering new physical evidence or witnesses.) You have the right to a lawyer, and the lawyer is allowed to object to questions, but you still have to answer them-if they object, they can attempt to get a court order after the fact to stop the answers from being used, if your lawyer doesn’t object at the time a court can dismiss an application for any such order on that basis. Also, if they call you in for questioning, it is a crime for you to tell anyone except for your own lawyer that they are questioning you.
> The right to council is often for the trial, not telling you how to avoid answering questions during a police interview.
It is important for the interview too. One’s lawyer can object to leading questions. They can give advice on how best to answer questions-you can be telling the truth, but some ways of phrasing the truth can sound much better than others. They can give advice on when it would be best to exercise one’s right to silence, and when it might be better not to.
Sometimes it even just serves to scare the police off. One guy I know was a bit of a hothead when he was younger, ended up in a fistfight, he put the other guy in hospital. He claimed self-defence, and it was one of those iffy “Who started it? Did he use excessive force in defending himself?” cases. He swears the only reason he wasn’t prosecuted, is he turned up to his official police interview with this really expensive, locally well-known criminal lawyer, and that scared the police and prosecution off, he was never charged. Who knows, but he’s probably right. Probably there’s some other guy out there who was in a similar situation, whose parents couldn’t afford that kind of lawyer (or didn’t know who they were or where to find them), and ended up being charged, going to trial, maybe even convicted, or talked into pleading guilty for a lesser sentence.
> I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop
Then for you especially, but really for everyone -- don't talk to the cop without a lawyer. Just don't. (at least if you are in the USA).
For all the reasons you mention. Lying to the cops can be committing a crime in itself. Trying to think it through and figure out exactly how much of the truth to tell in what way -- can either leave you accidentally committing the crime of lying to the cop, OR accidentally incriminating yourself (even if you don't think you've done anything wrong). The cops have way more training and practice and experience at this interaction than you, you will not outsmart them.
In the USA (and probably other places, but I know the USA), you have the right to not talk to the cops without a lawyer, and you should exercize it, even if you think you've done nothing wrong. (Plenty of people who think they've done nothing wrong end up screwed by the cops).
> in the US the police have no formal duty to protect you
This is one reason why, at least in the US, you should never talk to the police if you're suspected of a crime -- even if you're innocent and it seems that your innocence will be blindingly obvious to them[0]. Anything you say can and will be used against you, and by the rules of evidence, nothing you say to the police can be used for you in court. (Tell them you have a lawyer friend who will never let you live it down if you say anything without speaking to your attorney first.)
>And or course on a recorded interview/questioning, right? Because if there was no recording then it’s my word against police’s, right?
Nope. You need to express your desire to stay silent early in the "arrest or questioning" process with the police. I'm not an expert, so I don't want to pretend when your words can be used against you, but if a cop hears you say something, they can quote you in court.
Also, here is a fun twist. Your words can be used against you in court, but not for you. For instance: if the cop writes down a bunch of stuff you said while being arrested, and your defense lawyer wants to look at it -they are not allowed to see it-. They can only see the stuff the cops use to charge you
This is always important. Use your right to remain silent and never talk to police! Anybody that questions this should see this[1] attorney's very good explanation.
> I want my attorney. I won't answer any questions
Note that it's a good idea to explicitly invoke both of these (your right to an attorney and your right to not self incriminate). Law comic has a very rigorous flowchart[2] for handling being questioned by the police (or other government agent).
> 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.
> If you are ever arrested, don't say a word especially if you are innocent.
In the UK (which is where the OA is set) we don't really have that option. The police will warn you when arrested:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
So basically, you're required to mount your own ad-hoc defence when arrested, or "it may harm your defence" in court. This when you might be under extreme emotional stress from the arrest, or the incident which led to it. When your state of mind might be borderline rational or worse. Effectively, we do not have a right to silence.
"Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you."
If you do what the officer tells you to, 100% of the time without question, you will self-incriminate. You will surrender your rights. You will answer questions without an attorney. You will NOT answer questions, without verbally exercising your right to remain silent - and shockingly, that can be used against you as evidence. You can't answer some questions and not answer others - there is no such thing as selectively exercising your right to remain silent. (Other than your name, and probably address, etc.) If you answer some questions, and don't answer others, that can be used against you.
The jobs that cops do is impossibly hard. I mean that, impossible. It is not possible to always defend the rights of people, and always collect evidence to prosecute. Those are competing goals.
But the advice, "do what the officer tells you," is not good advice.
> Trust me, it's always better to cooperate with the cops.
Trust me -- an experienced defense lawyer will tell you in no uncertain terms to do exactly the opposite.
1. Exercise your right to be silent.
2. Do not volunteer any information.
3. Ask whether you are under arrest, and if the answer is "no", leave and engage the services of a competent attorney.
> Being a dick is just going to get you more trouble.
This is what the cops always tell you as they try to get you to abandon your rights. But the cops are allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to lie during interrogations, something the suspect cannot do without dire consequences.
> In the US: you don't ever talk to the police for any reason unless you have a lawyer with you telling you what to say.
How far do you take this? Here are a couple of hypothetical situations, and in both of them I would answer police questions. I've had people tell me that they would not, and have cited the popular video someone else cited earlier as the reason.
1. You are walking down the sidewalk and pass a parked car. You are a car enthusiast, and recognize the make, model, and year of the car because it is one that is sought after by enthusiasts, and this one particularly stands out because it looks like it some options that were only available in a limited edition.
A moment later, you hear a commotion, and see a man run out of a building holding a baby, followed by a woman who is shouting "help! my baby! he took my baby!", and then faints. You see the man get into the aforementioned car and get onto a nearby freeway, heading South.
Police quickly arrive. None of the other witnesses saw where the man went or could describe anything about him, because they were distracted when the woman fainted. The police ask you if you saw anything that could help find the man or identify him.
Do you really wait until you cat get a lawyer to advise you before you describe the car and tell them he appeared to get on the Southbound freeway?
2. There is an explosion in your small office. Police are the first emergency responders to arrive. They ask if everyone is accounted for. You saw a coworker go into the bathroom shortly before the explosion, and did not see them come out, and looking around at your coworkers gathered across the street watching the office burn and being given first aid, you see everyone except that one coworker.
Do you tell police that you still appear to have one missing coworker, or wait to run the question by a lawyer first?
> Shutting up and refusing to answer a question makes it very clear that you have something to hide
It really doesn't, at least in a court of law. Although if the police are interrogating you, they will almost certainly try to convince you that it does.
> never talk to the police. Ever. Under no circumstances. They are not your friend, they will not help you, they are looking for an easy way to wrap up the case. If the police are trying to talk to you then you are in their sights and they would much rather pin it all on you rather than do their actual jobs. Always ask for a lawyer and never think "Well if I just tell them X they will let me go".
There are exceptions to this rule, and I think one is when your girlfriend has just been kidnapped. Sure, in this case the police did absolutely nothing to actually help save the girlfriend, but the chance they might help seems worth the risk of being deemed a suspect.
> You don't need to be a legal expert to answer basic questions from a Police officer about did you do something or were you in a location at a time. They aren't lawyers either! And I didn't say you couldn't ask for a lawyer and wait for one to turn up before answering...
Wrong. In interviews, the police can (and do) lie, lead, present circumstantial evidence as smoking guns, etc. They are not lawyers, but they are well versed in the law. They are also in all probability more experienced in asking questions and interviewing than you are, even if you're smarter than them.
Everything you say to the police can and will literally be used against you. When you speak, even if you're innocent, you give up the biggest advantage you have. ANY inconsistencies will be used against you. Words can be given uncharitably during trial. They police WILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS that a prosecutor WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to ask in a trial (speculation, leading, etc), but if you answer the police it can be used in a trial and will in all likelihood be recorded. Ever listen to yourself later and cringe? Yeah.
Even if you present a consistent story from police interview to trial, you can't even use that consistency to your benefit, but the prosecutor can use the inconsistencies against you. Your silence can't be mentioned during a trial. It cannot be used against you.
Look, if it's a speeding ticket by all means talk to the police. If saw a criminal running away, tell the police what direction they headed.
If you've been detained or are in any way at risk of it, call a laywer.
>> Usually they keep questioning you for a while, but it's not hard to respond in a way that doesn't give them probable cause.
You should try exercising your fifth amendment right to remain silent. The police explicitly remind people who are arrested that anything they say "can and will" be used against them in a court of law.
>Would shutting up have resulted in less jail time?
Talking will never, absolutely never, result in anything but more jail time. There is absolutely zero benefit for you to answer police questions past basic things such as identifying yourself/things like showing license/registration at a traffic stop. At no point would talking ever make your case better.
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)
Beware this advice can vary from country to country. In England and Wales for example if you don't say something to the police that you later rely on for your defense that can be used against you e.g. they ask 'why was your boot full of weapons and where were you heading?' you stay silent then later state in court 'it was my brother's car, he asked me to drive it to a friend's house and pick him up, I didn't think to check in the boot' they could perhaps infer you'd taken some time to concoct a false story which is why you didn't answer the question initially however the rules are complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an.... You do have the right for a duty solicitor to attend an interview who can advise you on prudent things to say and where you should stay silent.
EDIT: Initially said this applied to the whole UK, actually only England and Wales (from the linked Wikipedia page) uncertain about Scotland & Northern Ireland.
reply