Promotions and standing in the department are based on convictions, not how swell of a guy you are. It's a problem in how the department promotes. If the cycle is ever to be broken, they need to find another scale to measure performance during their reviews.

 

Sorry, having been a cop myself, I have to disagree, its all based on politics.

 

I saw one on interrogation techniques. They had a Brazilian teen on the hot seat and one cop yelled at him and brow beat him, telling him to stop lying. The guy couldn’t speak English that well and he was obviously afraid. In his country, cops probably torture you. He said he didn’t even know the murdered victim at first (a young woman), but after two hours of this cop yelling at him to stop lying and telling him they knew he did it, the kid finally said he helped someone else dispose of the body. He wrote out a long confession. The cops thought they had a case until two weeks later they had proof the kid was still in Brazil when the murder took place and couldn’t possibly have done it.

The people doing the show explained that this was a case of cops going too far with the threats and yelling and that it happened a lot. It’s not uncommon for people to confess to crimes they didn’t commit. They explained the teen not only was afraid and was willing to confess to anything, but had been told so many times by the cops that he did it, he probably had gotten to the point he thought he had done it. Interrogation of suspects is an art.

The thing is no one has to talk at all, and that is the best option. There is nothing in it for you. Just say you invoke your right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer, period. This guy could have been convicted if the cops hadn’t kept digging. They had him connected to the body and that would’ve been enough. If they actually had anything on him, they would have arrested him immediately and would not have any need to talk to him at all. The fact cops wanted to talk to him was evidence they needed something to convict him. Cops don't want to talk to a suspect because they're lonely. He gave them what they wanted out of fear and made up a long story just to please them.

 

Once again, the ubiquitous warning. Discuss the issues all you want. Discuss individual actions, etc. But the second you step over into cop bashing territory, you will be on the outside looking in, so don't do it.

 

These were not bad cops. They just made a mistake and corrected it when the evidence showed they had a false confession.

 

That video is very informational and in no way bashes cops. What it does say is that what you say can be used against you but not for you. Your lawyer (should it get that far) can't even bring up in cross examination the true statements you give that make you look good or prove your innocence. Any statement you give will only be used to damage you. I thought statements good and bad were used but according to that professor and backed up by the cop later the police will exclude any exculpatory statement you make. That is big news to me and why I posted the link. It is the way the system works.

Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading or whatever she was alleged to have done but for lying. You can't lie if you stay silent. Which I think is probably sound advice alongside the road if you are stopped.

 

It sounds like you learned a most valuable lesson about the dark side of the criminal justice system. Pity the poor schmuck who learns it the hard way.

 

Never let them into your house without a warrant."Mind if I come in?" Yes I dnce they are in they can look all around,maybe you have a gun that`s not locked up or something else.

 

This, warrant please, if not we can talk on the porch.

 

this guy has it right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q&feature=player_detailpage

 

never , ever talk to a cop, friendly cop or not, without a lawyer present..
they will hang you, period.

 

Unless it's a L&P charge, in which case not explaining your actions to police WILL get you arrested and convicted. The problem with taking legal advice from the internet is half the time it's wrong.

856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.—(1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
(2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

PS- I also agree with WarHammer in that if I didn't do it, and it's easily proven that I didn't, I'll gladly point that out to the cops.

 

It says as much right there in the Miranda warning.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

I know because I watch Law & Order.

 

But did you know

anything you say to the police that is exculpatory will be excluded. That I didn't know. Did you? Is that something you see on Law & Order?

It says as much right there in the Miranda warning.



I know because I watch Law & Order.

 

Disclaimer: I'm a cop.

Advice: Never talk to the cops. It's called a Miranda WARNING for a reason.

 

Advice: Never talk to the cops.

Except when you are guilty of harming someone else :thumb:

 

I think the "Never ever" part of the advice is too broad. If an officer comes to your door informing you that three homes on your block have been burgled it is in your best interests to tell him about the ratty van you've seen parked across the street for the past two days.

Maybe the advice should be, "Never ever talked to the police about anything you have done."

(If that is covered in the video, I'm sorry. It isn't playing well on my device.)

 

That goes without saying

What the lecture is about is that if you are a person of interest in anything never say anything without an attorney present.

 

.
1. You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand?

2. Anything you say may be used against you in court. Do you understand?

3. You have the right to the presence of an attorney before and during any questioning. Do you understand?

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you free of charge before any questioning if you want. Do you understand?

5. Do you wish to waive these rights?

enough said

 

The upshot

is that if you talk about anything you have waived the right to remain silent before or after being told.

 

The REAL obstacle is to get people to realize that EVERY encounter with police is one of "those" encounters. Getting people to understand in theory is one thing, but in practice is another. It's like telling your children not to talk to strangers, and having them recite back to you that they won't, but then getting a stranger to chat them up, and the next thing you know, they're willing to get in a car with the stranger. It takes practice.

 

The police here are very friendly but can be a bit uppity. If you talk to one about some obscure law you've heard of they are cool. I don't really worry about police especially when I'm driving, he'll I even pass police on the highway because they go 15 under while playing on facebook. It's kind of fun really.

 

I have been a cop for almost 12 years. Never once have I tried to use a stupid statement to arrest an innocent man. Neither has any cop I know to my knowledge.

If you are actually guilty of a crime, yeah STFU and ask for a lawyer. If a cop is asking you about a crime you may have witnessed, he is not trying to jam you up to get a clearance on the case. He is actually trying to solve a crime.

Be smart, trust your instincts and realize that while most (in my experience) cops are good people, there are bad apples.

If you saw an old lady getting robbed or anyone being victimized, you are helping your community by being a good witness.

 

Twilight

watch the video and see if you disagree with anything said in the lecture by either the professor or the police detective.

An example given in video is that if you give a 100% factual statement and are 100% innocent then that could possibly be one piece that sends you to prison. So you don't have to be guilty. How?

The scenario is that a crime; IIRC a murder has happened and you are only too happy to give a statement since you are innocent and you were out of town staying with your mother. You have been mistakenly identified by someone from your high school and who has known you for 20 years. Who do you think the jury will believe; a disinterested third party or your biased mother? The implication I received is that your statement as to where you were at raised suspicions against that third disinterested party.

Your implications that if I remain silent is a sign of guilt is what needs to be zipped. I maintain after watching that video that remaining silent is the best thing an innocent person can do.

 

I plead the 5th on this topic...or any other topic...

 

Protestations of innocence are not admissible because the court no, the law, considers them "self serving". Don't talk to them, pretend like you are deaf and dumb..

 

I've been a cop for almost 20 years. I don't recall ever being trained to disregard statements that exonerate people. In fact those are generally called "alibis". They either check out, or they don't. If they do, then we know the person is telling the truth. As far as the "DA" and what he/she says, it's kind of irrelevant. Police are required to give all available evidence to the defense, including all statements, exculpatory statements included. It's not the DA's job to present a defense for a defendant, it's the defense's job. The police, if they're doing what they're supposed to, an innocent person who talks to them won't get charged in the first place. In my neck of the woods, the "DA" doesn't make charges, we do. They can drop them, lower them, or modify them once we do, but the decision to charge is ours.

Completely contrary to what America's Patriot posted, police promotions are not based on criminal convictions. Arrest numbers are part of what is looked at to consider if a person is doing their job and worthy of promotion, but not convictions. I couldn't tell you right now if my life depended on it how many cases I made resulted in convictions, because it's not my job to secure convictions, that falls to the prosecutor. Cases that are very good often get dismissed, or plead down, to clear the docket... my bosses only care that I make a good case, what is done with the case once it leaves my hands and goes to the prosecutor is not for me (or my bosses) to worry about. Literally nobody in my entire chain of command has ever commented on the amount of convictions I do, or do not, get. It's just not done. Period. Any cop with more than a week on the job will tell you that arrests are the only numbers that count in that regard. Once the arrest is made, the case is closed. What happens after that is of little consequence to the officer, as long as he didn't goon up and do something so egregious that comes out on the stand, like beat the suspect or violate his rights. As a detective my job is to clear cases, NOT make arrests. If I determine a case is unfounded, that's a clearance. If the victim refuses to cooperate, that's a clearance. I'm after the truth of what happened, as best as I can find it. Sometimes that results in charges, sometimes it doesn't. I get paid the same either way and promotions don't hinge on it at all. I've never met or heard from or of any cop who got promoted based on the number of convictions his cases generated. Never.

Let me tell you all a story about why it's a bad idea to take blanket legal advice from someone on the internet, even a professor. About 2 or 3 years ago a teenage girl at our local high school reported she was raped and sodomized by her ex-boyfriend who was a fellow student. The security camera footage from the school contradicted some parts of her story, but not enough for us to say she was definitely lying. Supposedly he followed her into the girls' bathroom and committed the act there. When we got in touch with his mother (he was 16) she started talking about how she might need a lawyer. I convinced her to bring him in and get his side of it. He was able to exonerate himself by telling the entire story, which made sense in light of the camera footage... turns out she sent him text messages asking him in very graphic terms if he was interested in getting it on. He, being a 16 year old boy, elected to fulfill her request. Now had he "lawyered up" we would have had no choice, due to the pressure put on us by the public who would inevitably hear of a "rape" at their school, to charge him based on the girl's statements alone... the word of the alleged victim does count as probable cause and if we can't disprove the "victim's" account then we have little choice in the matter. Now, could his mother have spent a few thousand dollars and won her son's freedom had we charged him? Probably. But by disregarding the idea of "never talk to the police", she saved her family major embarrassment, a HUGE amount of time and money, and he was cleared in less than half an hour. And the girl, who was a little loony in the head, was booted from school but not charged, due to her age. Her son went on to have a banner year in football and wrestling and last I heard was going to college. I don't think anybody would believe that would be the case if he was charged with rape, even if he ultimately won the case in court, the damage would have been unfathomable. You could easily cite this example, among many others, to make the complete opposite case that you should talk to police. The point is that the phrase "never say never" has merit here. By all means, if they police are wanting to talk to you and you ACTUALLY DID DO IT, then don't talk to them.

If every person, witnesses included, elected to "never" talk to the police, society would be an even nastier place than it already is. The word "never" is pretty broad. I can't see what good not telling the police what kind of car you saw fleeing a bank robbery, for example, would be a good idea. I get it from the standpoint of if they are questioning you about something that they think YOU did, but not as a witness. The bottom line is that the decision to talk, or not, should be based on the unique circumstances you find yourself in, not a video on Youtube.

 

I've been a cop for almost 20 years. I don't recall ever being trained to disregard statements that exonerate people. In fact those are generally called "alibis". They either check out, or they don't. If they do, then we know the person is telling the truth. As far as the "DA" and what he/she says, it's kind of irrelevant. Police are required to give all available evidence to the defense, including all statements, exculpatory statements included. It's not the DA's job to present a defense for a defendant, it's the defense's job. The police, if they're doing what they're supposed to, an innocent person who talks to them won't get charged in the first place. In my neck of the woods, the "DA" doesn't make charges, we do. They can drop them, lower them, or modify them once we do, but the decision to charge is ours.

If you had read the original statement it was about the DA, not the officer. The point was that just because you may tell an officer something that will exonerate you, that doesn't mean the ATTORNEY will use it or even allow it to come to light. That is not the officer's fault in any way, but it does still involve him.

Let me tell you all a story about why it's a bad idea to take blanket legal advice from someone on the internet, even a professor.

Best advice I got from a supervisor was to keep a lawyer on retainer; it is worth the money to have someone to call when needed.

About 2 or 3 years ago a teenage girl at our local high school reported she was raped and sodomized by her ex-boyfriend who was a fellow student.

We had an incident involing a drunk woman claiming rape as well. She had become past the point of stumbling drunk, and a group of friends took her back to her bunk (mix of men & women). When she awoke the following morning, she claimed rape against one of the men who had taken her to her bunk.

Now, the investigator refused to hear any of the witness statements (location of the suspect etc) because it was a woman who had cried rape. The suspect contacted a lawyer; the lawyer fought the investigators, mostly over his alibi and the issue where the woman had refused to undergoe the investigation to gather forensic evidence for the rape. If he had not 'lawyered up' he MIGHT have won in the end, but most likely he would have been convicted of rape.

The scenario you supplied is an incorrect one. If the mother had contacted a lawyer, you claimed that you would have had 'no choice' but to proceed? That is complete crap, and a threat of repercussion against someone attempting to protect themselves. There is no reason a suspect with a lawyer cannot talk to police, or communicate through their lawyer. The lawyer knows the law better than the suspect, and most likely better than most officers out there.

A lawyer would not have stopped your investigation at all.

If every person, witnesses included, elected to "never" talk to the police, society would be an even nastier place than it already is.

Correct, but trying to push the idea that a suspect would not need a lawyer would result in a nastier place as well. A better plan would be not to talk to an officer without your lawyer's advice first.

 

I personally only answer questions when dealing with any representative of the government, from cops to the front desk dude at the VA clinic. I never volunteer any information. If they don't ask, I don't tell.

 

Guys I appreciate this discussion has stayed on point and the advice never ever is of course hyperbole but it does serve a good point.

The message in the video (as I understand it) was that if you are guilty to never ever talk to the police without a lawyer. But the second part of the message to me is even more important is if you are innocent. By giving a statement you have anchored yourself to a time place and/or person/people. Warhammer in your example I imagine the timeline, cameras and the text had a lot to do with your decision.

The hypothetical given involved a longer time, greater distances, no objective evidence with and a witness identifying him (honestly mistakenly) against his mother and his claims that he was with her when the crime was committed in a town away.

Since this is a hypothetical case I'd like your opinion on what a hypothetical investigator and prosecutor might do with that information with no other suspects. This is a small town and all three; the witness, the victim, and the suspect knew each other from high school 20 years earlier. There exists the possibility that the victim and the suspect had an altercation in high school. Given no other suspects, a credible witness, and some doubt of his location; do you charge him? And does the fact that he gave a statement that is contradicted carry any weight? And if he had not given a statement with no possibility of lying, factor in that decision.

When you interview him do you reveal before his statement that you have that witness? And do you after you or the DA have him pinned him down with his statement ever use that leverage to plea bargain? In my hypothetical only the suspect and his mom knows he is innocent. Does a credible witness who places our suspect at the scene, near the time cast reasonable doubt on his alibi in the light of no other suspects?

Now imagine a scenario where your suspect remains silent. If there was no witness to place him there at the time and place you have no case right? So there is no incentive other than being free to leave for the time being for him to make a statement.

But you do have a witness and now you are deciding whether to charge him. Does the fact that he hasn't revealed his whereabouts for that night make you pause? Do you try to solve that mystery before you bring charges?

Lets say you think you have a good case and charge him. I assume at that point the defense attorney has access to your evidence but he is under no obligation to reveal his. So now you are at a disadvantage and he has time to poke holes in the credibility of your witness. Maybe she had went to an optometrist or something related.

Update: Rules for discovery vary from state to state; from restrictive to open discovery rules so the above may not be true for all states. Regardless I fail to see how not making a statement where you are a person of interest can hurt.

I think that changes if you are a witness.

 

Lets say you think you have a good case and charge him. I assume at that point the defense attorney has access to your evidence but he is under no obligation to reveal his.

This is not correct, the prosecution is also entitled to discovery materials from the defense. They don't have to provide their exact strategy, but they do have to fork over copies of anything they intend to use at trial.

 

I found out the hard way that police are ALLOWED to LIE to you to get you to incriminate youre self. Lucky for me the the group that was involved didnt get their lie co-ordinated and charges were dropped.

 

I have never heard of a single lawyer that didn’t advise to never say a word if you are stopped while walking down a sidewalk except: “May I leave now?” If the officer says no, you ask, “Am I under arrest?” If the officer says no, you ask again, “May I leave now?” You say nothing else. Also, I have never heard of a lawyer not advising you to demand a lawyer and invoke your right to remain silent if you are ever taken in for questioning. Unless you are a witness to a crime, you are being interrogated because you are a suspect. And, yes, innocent people are arrested every day and some of them are convicted.

Look up the case of the FBI claiming for decades their lab could analyze the lead alloy in a bullet and determine what box of ammo it came from, though many experts said it couldn’t be done. This went on for 30+ years before it was finally stopped in 2005 when enough scientists and others convinced enough judges the “science” was bogus.

The FBI finally had the National Research Council do a study of compositional analysis of bullet lead (CABL). The report concluded that the 6 ICP-OES method of determining the concentrations of elements in bullet lead is valid and reliable, but that research does not support testimony that two bullets originated from the same manufacturer, from the same melt of lead, from the same box of bullets, or on the same date. Thousands of cases are supposed to be retried now, but it’s been years and convictions still stand.

This is the top law enforcement agency in the country, yet their lab is not infallible. No wonder lawyers say don’t talk to the police.

 

No amount of talking to the police in the world is going to make me tell them I didn't something I didn't do. So in other words, if I am questioned by police and they say to me "Well our tests indicate the bullet came from the same box of bullets, blah, blah, blah..." and I DID NOT do it, then they've got a job to do, because they're talking to the wrong guy. If I can easily prove I'm not the guy who did "it", then talking may actually be in my best interest. It all hinges on the totality of the circumstances. When you talk about what lawyers advise, lawyers advise certain things for a reason. OF COURSE they'd prefer you not clear yourself by providing airtight information that clears you (as in my real life example)... they don't get paid if you are truly innocent, cooperate and clear yourself. There's no big payday for them... Lawyers are like the shady mechanics, telling you that you need a brand new part or service that you really don't.... sure, a brand new timing belt isn't going to hurt anything, but you may not actually NEED it. Saying that lawyers recommend you always get a lawyer is a given.. it's like saying that a used car salesmen recommends you buy a used car.

Another true story of mine: I worked a case in which a female shoe store employee claimed a guy flashed his junk to her. There was no video in the store. It was her word versus his. I called him in for an interview, I did not read him his rights even though he was a suspect, because I didn't have to. It was a non-custodial interview. He, of course, denied the act, but some of the things he said indicated he probably did... Enough to the point where I COULD have made the charge, but didn't. I told him that we could clear the entire matter up if he would take and pass the polygraph. He said he would. Of course, as I suspected, he called up the day prior to the appointment and said he talked to some friends and a lawyer and that he didn't have to prove his innocence to me. All very true. However when he came to get a copy of the report, he was dismayed to see his name listed in the block labeled "Offender". He demanded it be removed. Unfortunately for him, his name will remain in that block as an uncharged suspect... He was right, he didn't have to prove his innocence. But, and here's the funny part... NEITHER DO I. His lack of cooperation means that I couldn't say definitively that he did it, but I couldn't say he didn't either. The police report is merely a report of what someone swore happened to the police. I couldn't take his name out of the "OFFENDER" block even if I wanted to. Now of course he has no criminal history, he was never arrested or charged, but in the unlikely event someone ever requests a FOIA or local records check on him from the department, they will see the report. I am fine with this either way. Either he did it, and in which case he deserves it, or he didn't do it but elected not to help us clear the case. The choice was his to make. He was free to make it, however he was not free to avoid the ramifications of that choice. That's how life works. Was he "sticking it to the man" by invoking his rights? Not even a little bit... My paycheck was still the same and his name is still listed as a suspect of committing a sex offense. As long as person A makes a sworn statement that person B did something and we can't prove otherwise, it stays as an open case.

There are two entities that like to play this game that they are true watchdogs and defenders of the Constitution: Lawyers and the media.
Both of them are very good at peddling BS to the uninitiated. When you hear a lawyer talk about presenting a vigorous defense and safeguarding rights, he's hearing the sound of the register going "CHA-CHING". When the media tells the public that they are the guardians of the "right to know", it's important to remember that they are a profit-drive entity consumed with selling ad space.

 

There are about 100 things wrong with your post. If you don't know that, no amount of explaining will help you. The lead bullet bogus science was enough to get people convicted on its own! If a FBI official claims in court that his "science" proves the bullet that was dug out of the victim came from a box of bullets found in your possession, that will get you convicted, IF the jury believes the FBI official. Though your statement that no cop will get you to confess to a crime you didn't commit is screwed up with typos, it's still wrong. It is well known in the court system and in law enforcement that people OFTEN confess to crimes they didn't commit if the right methods are used against them by cops. Many suspects are of low IQ and can be easily fooled and intimidated. Good cops know this and try to avoid a wrongful conviction, others take advantage of the low IQ of the suspect. Cops are allowed to lie and claim they have 100 witnesses who state they saw him commit the crime and they have all kinds of evidence to convict, but if he confesses, they will ask the judge and jury to go easy on him. They have even had people write out an apology to the victim, claiming they can get the charges dismissed if the suspect asks for forgiveness. This may not work on average people, but a low IQ person, terrified and browbeaten for hours, sometimes over 24 hours straight with no sleep and no bathroom breaks may fall for it. A lawyer would stop this before it started. As for "telling your side" of the story, you do that through your lawyer. A grand spent on three hours of a lawyer's time may prevent the loss of everything you have and your freedom.

There is an infamous case of the FBI knowingly allowing an innocent man rot in prison for thirty-five years. Google it. This stuff happens. It may not happen every day, but it happens.



As for polygraphs, they are not reliable and anyone who agrees to take one is playing Russian roulette. Unless I'm mistaken, George Zimmerman took one and passed, but he was still charged and tried. Taking a polygraph test is a lose/lose situation for the accused. It cannot be used in court either way, and cops will often ignore it anyway.

 

There are about 100 things wrong with your post. If you don't know that, no amount of explaining will help you.

Considering that I've been in law enforcement for 18 years and have my CJ Admin degree, I guess I'll just have to continue to muddle through my career without your sage advice. I hope I can make it through somehow.

As for polygraphs, they are not reliable and anyone who agrees to take one is playing Russian roulette. Unless I'm mistaken, George Zimmerman took one and passed, but he was still charged and tried. Taking a polygraph test is a lose/lose situation for the accused. It cannot be used in court either way, and cops will often ignore it anyway.

Please, tell me more, I've been a cop for almost two decades and I'm just now hearing this, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, you say? Who knew.

 

I have been told by a deputy that any reports that do not result in an arrest will be destroyed after a certain amount of time. I'm wondering how truthful your post is. And YES you do have to prove his guilt! Branding someone a sex offender without even charging him is wrong.

 

Oh. OK. I'll be sure to let the head of my agency know that some anonymous guy on the internet said we have to delete old reports. You're wrong, to list someone as a suspect in a report merely requires that he is suspected of a particular offense. To arrest and charge him requires more. It's the height of hilarity for you to lecture me on what you think is true because "a deputy" told you. That would be like you trying to tell a 777 pilot how to fly a plane because the captain of an airliner said "Have a good day" as you got off the plane. Stupid.