Don't Talk to Police
It's often thought that the Fifth Amendment is something you invoke to cover guilt. In court, an innocent man will certainly take the stand in his own defense, right? After all, only someone who is guilty would choose not to take the stand. Chances are pretty good that you, too, believe this. But if you have an hour, I believe I'll convince you otherwise -- and possibly give you an eye-opening experience along the way.
If you're innocent of a crime, there is no possible benefit in talking to the police. You may want to be regarded as cooperative and helpful, but in fact, only bad things can come of this choice. If at any point during the course of a long interview (interrogation, actually) it's discovered that you have broken any one of tens of thousands of laws, you've just set yourself up for prosecution and possible conviction -- and most certainly ruined your credibility with any jury. If you are guilty, you will certainly be convicted on statements and admissions you make to police contrary to your rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Understand that police officers are experts who investigate thousands of crimes during their careers and have infinite opportunities to find something in your statements -- in or out of context -- that might sound peculiar to a jury. They are better at this that you are. Not even cops and lawyers can talk themselves out of arrest; all the truly wise ones say nothing at all. In court, cops are expert witnesses and it's always their word against yours.
Traffic cops can stop a thousand drivers every year and have become very good at asking the right probing questions, seemingly innocuous, getting people to admit guilt, getting them to forfeit their rights to privacy and protections from warrantless searches and seizures. When you encounter police, no matter how smart you think you are, no matter if you're a quick study or think good on your feet, you're a 90-pound weakling entering the ring with an olympic boxer; you will get knocked out.
If a cop wants to stop you, he can simply follow you until he or she observes faulty equipment or you violating a traffic law. Not if. When. Nobody is capable of driving perfectly. To avoid being stopped, you would have to make sure a thousand conditions are provably perfect, but the officer only needs one as a valid reason to stop you. Guess who always wins.
When you are stopped, it's pretty tough to sit in your car and be perfectly quiet with a cop at your window asking questions in an urgent or commanding tone -- or even in a very friendly and accommodating way. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "What's the hurry?" "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Do you know the speed limit here?" "Where are you headed?" "Do you have anything illegal in your car I need to know about? You don't mind if I take a quick look, do you?" You may not be compelled to tell him everything he wants to know, so you might exaggerate or say something not entirely true. People inherently want to be accommodating, to tell their story and even tell partial truths (yeah, I was speeding a little). If he or she detects one lie or catches you admitting to driving 1 MPH over the limit, they win. And if you lie, you can be arrested on the spot, which means your car is subject to search and you will be written up for as many violations as they can find.
Even if you’re guilty of some crime, there’s plenty of time to confess, so why rush to give a detailed account to the first officer that wants to interview you and possibly say something that might sound like a lie? Let your attorney help you decide the appropriate time and manner to provide details of your crimes, and possibly be able to negotiate a lighter sentence in exchange for your cooperation -- an opportunity that would otherwise vanish if you speak up right away. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously opined in his 1949 decision in Watts v. Indiana that "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Regent Law School Professor James Duane teaches this: 1) even perfectly innocent citizens may get themselves into trouble even when the police are trying to do their jobs properly, because police malfeasance is entirely unnecessary for the innocent to convict themselves by mistake; 2) talking to police may bring up erroneous but believable evidence against even innocent witnesses; and 3) individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed a crime which they inadvertently confess to during questioning.
There are three types of police encounters:
Consensual
Investigative detention
Arrest
In a consensual encounter you’re free to go about your business if you choose to. Any questions you answer are considered part of a casual conversation among regular people and not part of an investigation. But things can escalate to the next level rapidly, depending on the information you happen to share with the officer. You do not have to answer police questions.
An investigative detention means you’re not free to go and you may or may not be given a Miranda warning. At this point, there’s no probable cause to arrest you, but there are now circumstances that give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime or are illegally armed and a potential danger to the public or the officer. At this point you can be frisked (Terry v. Ohio) for weapons. In certain circumstances you may be handcuffed and even placed in the back of a police car. They still need your consent to do a thorough search of you and your vehicle, but if they should ask for your permission, you are within your rights to tell them you don’t consent. You still do not have to answer police questions.
Arrest means you’re going to jail in cuffs and you’re most certainly not free to go. Before an officer may legally arrest you, probable cause that you have committed a crime must be established and he or she may now search you and your vehicle, if for no other reason but their safety and that of the impound attendants. They don’t need your consent at this point, but you continue to have the right to not answer any questions.
Three things defense attorneys beg their clients to say -- and nothing else:
1) Am I free to go?
2) I have nothing to say without my lawyer.
3) I do not consent to any searches.
Every defense attorney and every police officer worth their weight can give dozens of examples of how you're at a disadvantage during any police encounter. Never consent to searches and don't answer any questions, but do ask if you're free to go. Do not debate the law, do not be rude and never resist or fail to follow a lawful order (refusing to answer questions does not equate to being uncooperative, so don't fall into that trap). Cops become very good at knowing when to be disarming and when to be commanding. In either case, if they succeed in engaging you in a friendly chat, you are at a serious disadvantage.
If you don't believe that, watch this presentation given by a former defense attorney and a police officer. To law-abiding citizens, this is eye-opening and alarming. To criminals, this knowledge could work like a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by refusing to incriminate themselves.
One video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Part I - Prof. James Duane at Regent Law School, a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Part II - Officer George Bruch, an experienced military investigator and police officer from Virginia Beach, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
If you're innocent of a crime, there is no possible benefit in talking to the police. You may want to be regarded as cooperative and helpful, but in fact, only bad things can come of this choice. If at any point during the course of a long interview (interrogation, actually) it's discovered that you have broken any one of tens of thousands of laws, you've just set yourself up for prosecution and possible conviction -- and most certainly ruined your credibility with any jury. If you are guilty, you will certainly be convicted on statements and admissions you make to police contrary to your rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Understand that police officers are experts who investigate thousands of crimes during their careers and have infinite opportunities to find something in your statements -- in or out of context -- that might sound peculiar to a jury. They are better at this that you are. Not even cops and lawyers can talk themselves out of arrest; all the truly wise ones say nothing at all. In court, cops are expert witnesses and it's always their word against yours.
Traffic cops can stop a thousand drivers every year and have become very good at asking the right probing questions, seemingly innocuous, getting people to admit guilt, getting them to forfeit their rights to privacy and protections from warrantless searches and seizures. When you encounter police, no matter how smart you think you are, no matter if you're a quick study or think good on your feet, you're a 90-pound weakling entering the ring with an olympic boxer; you will get knocked out.
If a cop wants to stop you, he can simply follow you until he or she observes faulty equipment or you violating a traffic law. Not if. When. Nobody is capable of driving perfectly. To avoid being stopped, you would have to make sure a thousand conditions are provably perfect, but the officer only needs one as a valid reason to stop you. Guess who always wins.
When you are stopped, it's pretty tough to sit in your car and be perfectly quiet with a cop at your window asking questions in an urgent or commanding tone -- or even in a very friendly and accommodating way. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "What's the hurry?" "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Do you know the speed limit here?" "Where are you headed?" "Do you have anything illegal in your car I need to know about? You don't mind if I take a quick look, do you?" You may not be compelled to tell him everything he wants to know, so you might exaggerate or say something not entirely true. People inherently want to be accommodating, to tell their story and even tell partial truths (yeah, I was speeding a little). If he or she detects one lie or catches you admitting to driving 1 MPH over the limit, they win. And if you lie, you can be arrested on the spot, which means your car is subject to search and you will be written up for as many violations as they can find.
Even if you’re guilty of some crime, there’s plenty of time to confess, so why rush to give a detailed account to the first officer that wants to interview you and possibly say something that might sound like a lie? Let your attorney help you decide the appropriate time and manner to provide details of your crimes, and possibly be able to negotiate a lighter sentence in exchange for your cooperation -- an opportunity that would otherwise vanish if you speak up right away. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously opined in his 1949 decision in Watts v. Indiana that "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Regent Law School Professor James Duane teaches this: 1) even perfectly innocent citizens may get themselves into trouble even when the police are trying to do their jobs properly, because police malfeasance is entirely unnecessary for the innocent to convict themselves by mistake; 2) talking to police may bring up erroneous but believable evidence against even innocent witnesses; and 3) individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed a crime which they inadvertently confess to during questioning.
There are three types of police encounters:
Consensual
Investigative detention
Arrest
In a consensual encounter you’re free to go about your business if you choose to. Any questions you answer are considered part of a casual conversation among regular people and not part of an investigation. But things can escalate to the next level rapidly, depending on the information you happen to share with the officer. You do not have to answer police questions.
An investigative detention means you’re not free to go and you may or may not be given a Miranda warning. At this point, there’s no probable cause to arrest you, but there are now circumstances that give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime or are illegally armed and a potential danger to the public or the officer. At this point you can be frisked (Terry v. Ohio) for weapons. In certain circumstances you may be handcuffed and even placed in the back of a police car. They still need your consent to do a thorough search of you and your vehicle, but if they should ask for your permission, you are within your rights to tell them you don’t consent. You still do not have to answer police questions.
Arrest means you’re going to jail in cuffs and you’re most certainly not free to go. Before an officer may legally arrest you, probable cause that you have committed a crime must be established and he or she may now search you and your vehicle, if for no other reason but their safety and that of the impound attendants. They don’t need your consent at this point, but you continue to have the right to not answer any questions.
Three things defense attorneys beg their clients to say -- and nothing else:
1) Am I free to go?
2) I have nothing to say without my lawyer.
3) I do not consent to any searches.
Every defense attorney and every police officer worth their weight can give dozens of examples of how you're at a disadvantage during any police encounter. Never consent to searches and don't answer any questions, but do ask if you're free to go. Do not debate the law, do not be rude and never resist or fail to follow a lawful order (refusing to answer questions does not equate to being uncooperative, so don't fall into that trap). Cops become very good at knowing when to be disarming and when to be commanding. In either case, if they succeed in engaging you in a friendly chat, you are at a serious disadvantage.
If you don't believe that, watch this presentation given by a former defense attorney and a police officer. To law-abiding citizens, this is eye-opening and alarming. To criminals, this knowledge could work like a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by refusing to incriminate themselves.
One video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Part I - Prof. James Duane at Regent Law School, a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Part II - Officer George Bruch, an experienced military investigator and police officer from Virginia Beach, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
