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

61–70 of 154 posts

Re: Never talk to the police

#61

Post by bryanlarsen »

buellerbueller wrote: post #33
SoftTalker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for? Your position is just bonkers.

Because cops are human, and most people answer questions when cops ask them questions. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you in court, but it certainly often is in the minds of humans. And when a cop has "evidence" against you that they cannot use in court, that's when it seems likely they'll manufacture some evidence that is usable.

Re: Never talk to the police

#62

Post by Brendinooo »

Spooky23 wrote: post #35
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…

4 doesn't really happen, unless you're a mandated reporter and don't report child abuse. I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't. The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went t…

>I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.

Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?

Re: Never talk to the police

#63

Post by ceejayoz »

lwansbrough wrote: post #60
ceejayoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop > When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. They can't pull you over without reason in the first place.

Yeah you’re doing the thing I suggested people don’t do. It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.

> It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify.

Again:

> Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.

It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.

Re: Never talk to the police

#65

Post by sillystuff »

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

But, 4 is possible.

After Salinas v Texas, you must positively assert that you are exercising your right to silence, not simply remain silent.

The prosecutor in a murder trial argued, at trial, that silence of the defendant (during police questioning) was evidence of his guilt. The supreme court in Salinas v Texas allowed this.

* The defendant also selectively answered some questions, so perhaps there is nuance, but to be safe, a positive assertion of right to remain silent seems prudent.

IANAL, and would love if an actual lawyer would comment on this.

Re: Never talk to the police

#66

Post by ibejoeb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #31
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…

> For example, you are required to provide identification when operating a vehicle at a traffic stop. No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr... > The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry s…

Hiible wasn't operating a vehicle; he was standing outside, near it. It was not a traffic stop.

And just for clarity, a Terry stop is any brief investigative detention, not just those that arise from traffic stops.

Re: Never talk to the police

#67

Post by FishAngular12 »

Cider9986 wrote: post #43
seethishat wrote: post #7

It is OK to talk to them. Just don't lie and don't answer questions. Doing either could land you in jail.

Talking never helps, it cannot help. Nothing you say to cops can help you. Even if it's completely entirely true and they believe it and they like you and that's enough for me. It can only hurt you.

Actually it can help me if it helps solve a crime. The solving of a crime is good for society, actually. I live in a society, after all

Re: Never talk to the police

#68

Post by jfengel »

buellerbueller wrote: post #33
SoftTalker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for? Your position is just bonkers.

If they don't have it out for you to start with, answering their questions can get you out of it. If they pull you over and you just answer their questions, the odds are that they will just send you on your way, eventually.

But if you start invoking your rights and they think you have something to hide, they can easily find an excuse. "I smelled alcohol" is a popular one. If you refuse the test, they can invoke the smell of alcohol as an excuse to bring you in. They will eventually let you go, but that's days rather than minutes.

Police will correctly tell you that they don't want to harass you and it is much easier to simply answer their questions if you have nothing to hide. You don't have to, and most of the time they'll still just let you go as long as you comply with the actual orders. But it's not a guarantee.

Re: Never talk to the police

#69

Post by linsomniac »

thayne wrote: post #39

But lawyers are expensive, and if it turns out you are just a witness, you are going to be spending a lot of money for nothing. And then consider if you are are the spouse or parent of a murder victim or missing person, and are innocent. You are almost certainly going to be a potential suspect, but you also want to help them find the actual criminal, and if hiring a lawyer makes you "look guilty", then the police mig…

>But lawyers are expensive

Maybe, but it can also be VERY expensive to NOT have a lawyer.

I have a lawyer that offers free 30 minute initial conversations. But I also practically beg her to charge me for her time because it's valuable to me to get her take on the situation.

Re: Never talk to the police

#70

Post by lwansbrough »

ceejayoz wrote: post #63
lwansbrough wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you’re doing the thing I suggested people don’t do. It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. If you feel as though the detainment was illegal, you can sue after the fact. There’s no point in trying to litigate the situation with the officer.

> It doesn’t matter if they have RS for the detainment (a reason for the stop), once the traffic stop is underway you must identify. Again: > Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop. It is legal for a state to require you to do so, but some have not done so.

Again, this case is about Terry stops. Not traffic stops.

If you have been detained in a motor vehicle you are in control of, you must identify.

Post reply on HN