Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Never talk to the police

campolalaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 154 posts

Re: Never talk to the police

#21

Post by FireBeyond »

normalaccess wrote: post #8

Sometimes it's smart to be silent. Pro 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Note that in the US, you need to verbally assert your right to remain silent.

Merely being silent means the prosecution is able describe your communication as "refused to cooperate with or answer questions from law enforcement" which is a "negative" finding, whereas the right to remain silent is at least meant to be interpreted neutrally.

Re: Never talk to the police

#22

Post by lwansbrough »

Arainach wrote: post #15
Brendinooo wrote: post #12

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it…

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify.

Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.

Re: Never talk to the police

#23

Post by Maxatar »

Brendinooo wrote: post #12

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it…

If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.

Re: Never talk to the police

#24

Post by SoftTalker »

Arainach wrote: post #15
Brendinooo wrote: post #12

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it…

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.

Re: Never talk to the police

#25

Post by onraglanroad »

Arainach wrote: post #15
Brendinooo wrote: post #12

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it…

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not.

Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.

Re: Never talk to the police

#26

Post by Brendinooo »

digitalPhonix wrote: post #20
Brendinooo wrote: post #12

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it…

The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible

The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?

Re: Never talk to the police

#27

Post by mcmcmc »

Maxatar wrote: post #23
Brendinooo wrote: post #12

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it…

If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.

Not everyone has attorney money.

Re: Never talk to the police

#28

Post by wat10000 »

lwansbrough wrote: post #22
Arainach wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify. Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the…

"Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.

Re: Never talk to the police

#29

Post by Capricorn2481 »

lwansbrough wrote: post #22
Arainach wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify. Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the…

> If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment

If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.

Re: Never talk to the police

#30

Post by m348e912 »

lwansbrough wrote: post #16

It’s really important to know your rights. A lot of people think they know, but often times they don’t. And it gets those people in trouble. For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No exceptions. Don’t get hung up on the reason for the stop, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, police can articulate in virtually any situation that they fear for officer safety, w…

This is so true, and it's surprising how many people don't know what they are obligated to do when asked by an officer. It's even fuzzy for me at times.

It should be well known that you are required to show ID if pulled over [Whren v. United States (1996)], your passenger is required to show his or her ID [Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)] , and you must exist the vehicle if asked to do so [Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) (for drivers) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) (for passengers)].

All of these requirements have been litigated to the supreme court. You should also know the difference between probably cause and reasonable suspicion. We should add these topics to high school civics or something.

Post reply on HN