Approached by a cop
- Thread starter rchance
- Start date
no harm straightshooter1....my comment about NY being wonderful was a dig at those who never have a good word to say about NY, but themselves live in glass houses. ie, in NY we don't have to notify the PD that we're carrying concealed.
I put 2 of the intolerant kind on ignore, I have no time for their BS.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2009-01-23-newyork-senate_N.htm
I put 2 of the intolerant kind on ignore, I have no time for their BS.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2009-01-23-newyork-senate_N.htm
So what does Barney Fife wannabe stand for?
norfdet
Member
In VA when we run a VA resident the computer will inform us whether or not they have a CCW permit, if the ID matches I usually just ask them if they have it and where it is (that is if they don't inform me before hand).
Does it do that with non-resident permits also? Just curious, as I have one.
Ooops, resident only! Should have read more closely.
uncle norman
Member
+1 on the G30 in an ankle holster. I even bought a small lockable case for those times I have to disarm: Post office, schools. I cut out the padding in the lower half of the case so I can just pull the DeSantis off with pistol inside, wrap it around on itself and sit it in the case. I left enough padding so the extra 10 round mag can lay in there and be held tight. I've got a four dial in-line combination lock that I snap shut.
This is a great (and chilling) video from a law school class on 5th amendment rights and why you should NOT talk to cops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
......unless it's time for "let's make a deal". Then you can't get em to shut up. They call you at lunch, they call your pager, they bug your secretary....All because they think the reason you're unavailable is because you and the prosecutor are talking to their buddy and he's getting a better deal than them.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
He's why lawyers have a bad name.
"I will never talk to a police officer under any circumstances."
So a little girl goes missing on his block. The cops come knocking door to door (a routine neighborhood canvass) and this guy just stares at them. Even though he doesn't have anything to do with it, this profile-fitting ******** goes to the top of the look and see list. Now instead of looking for the kid, the cops are running his name and generally wasting time. Why? Because only a kiddy diddler or a lawyer would pull this ****.
Maybe somebody will snatch his kid. Do you really think he'll want the people around him to clam up?
Get a grip.
"I will never talk to a police officer under any circumstances."
So a little girl goes missing on his block. The cops come knocking door to door (a routine neighborhood canvass) and this guy just stares at them. Even though he doesn't have anything to do with it, this profile-fitting ******** goes to the top of the look and see list. Now instead of looking for the kid, the cops are running his name and generally wasting time. Why? Because only a kiddy diddler or a lawyer would pull this ****.
Maybe somebody will snatch his kid. Do you really think he'll want the people around him to clam up?
Get a grip.
Last edited by a moderator:
Erich
Member
People say all kinds of extreme things without thinking it through.
Lawyers certainly don't get a pass on this issue.
ttpete
Member
Sarcasm aside, I watched both parts 1 and 2. It was an excellent presentation to a law class that took the better part of an hour. The attorney talked for half the time, and absolutely made the case for not saying anything at all without one's attorney present. The detective then spoke for an equal time, and basically described how he conducted interviews and obtained statements that would incriminate a subject. In the end, he absolutely agreed with the attorney in saying: "Don't Talk to Cops."
Why condemn something you obviously didn't take the time to watch?
Folks, this is well worth watching. I can very well understand why any LEO wouldn't want the public to see it. It would make it much more difficult for them if the average person just kept his or her big mouth shut.
safearm
US Veteran
I was the director of a regional police academy for over 6 years. I was also one of the few non-lawyers that was certified to teach constitutional law. I strongly emphasized that anybody that talks to an LEO (in an interrogation situation, yes, there is a legal difference!) without an attorney present, deserves to get whatever happens to them. As the Miranda decision affirms, "You have the right to remain silent," so use it!
???? The Miranda decision didn't affirm the 5th amendment. You had a right to remain silent before Miranda just like you did after. Miranda had nothing to do with whether or not you had a right to remain silent. A right to remain silent or not was never in question. It merely instituted a judge-made rule that requires the police to inform people of what their 5th amendment rights are before being the subject of a police-initiated questioning (or its functional equivalent) while in custody. If they don't get waiver of Miranda, the statement isn't allowed in court under most circumstances. The Miranda Warning is a rule, not a right.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/384/436/case.html
safearm
US Veteran
To be grammatically correct, I should have said, "As the Miranda decision requires that I tell you..." My humble apologies.
nh40ve
Member
i've walked right by a member of our local P.D. (within 10ft) while OCing and he either didn't notice(which would be bad sign of P.D. training) or he did and didn't feel the need to inquire(seeing as OC doesn't need permit,etc..)
was even heading into a building that has a bank branch.(good thing i wasn't going in to rob the place)
was even heading into a building that has a bank branch.(good thing i wasn't going in to rob the place)
ttpete
Member
There's a series running on A&E called "The First 48" that deals with murder investigations. What's interesting is the use of actual interrogation footage and the techniques involved. After seeing that, it reinforces my decision to never be interrogated without my attorney present. Did you know that it's perfectly legal for a federal agent to lie to you, but it is a felony to lie to a federal agent? Really makes you think twice about doing a one-on-one, doesn't it? Look what happened to Martha Stewart. Never convicted of insider trading, but went to prison for parsing a word wrong.
cmort666
Member
But with WHOM? Trust me, that lawyer doesn't care one whit whether you like him, nor SHOULD he.
Apart from identifying myself verbally (or in Ohio, informing when I'm carrying a concealed firearm after being stopped for an OFFICIAL purpose), I have NO duty to talk to the police without legal representation, NONE.
No attorney has a duty to advise me to do anything prejudicial to my 4th and 5th Amendment rights. In fact, he has a duty to do exactly the OPPOSITE.
I have precisely ZERO control over whether I'm a suspect, regardless of what I say to a cop. If he THINKS I'm a suspect, then I'm a suspect, PERIOD. That being the case, absolutely the less I say to him without a lawyer present, absolutely the better. If you dispute this, talk to Mike Nifong and the Duke lacrosse team.
Police have the legal right to lie to me while questioning me. I have NO idea why they're REALLY questioning me, or whether they're even telling the truth. They may be questioning me for something ENTIRELY unrelated to their stated reasons, assuming they state a reason in the first place, which they don't have to unless I'm being detained (and maybe not then). Under those circumstances, I'm stupid to just run my mouth in front of somebody I don't know, whose word BY LAW I can't trust, and whose motives are TOTALLY unknown and UNKNOWABLE to me.
My job is not to make the cop's job easier. My job is to protect my rights and not talk myself into a jam not of my own making. The cop doesn't have to like that. He just has to obey the law. If he doesn't there are consequences.
straightshooter1
US Veteran
You ought to consider to whom the lecture on the tape was given-law students.
And, further consider that the cop was a third year law student.
And, if you look at it again, the ultimate purpose was to teach the students what advice to give when called by a client, whether the client is a suspect or a witness (since he may actually be or turn into a suspect).
Some wit said those who can-do and those who can't-teach!
While I imagine I might give the same advice if called at home, I think the lesson might be better taught to future lawyers by explaining that, if it is indeed a client, one does not give advice at home and hang up to go back to watching CSI.
One tells the client to tell Officer Friendly that his lawyer will be right there. Then you get off your behind, drive to where the client is, talk in private to him, talk to the cops (that's where relationships are important-if you have lied and bullied the cops you'll get zip) and then talk to your client again so your client can make an informed decision with your advice. Your advice may be not to talk or it may be to cooperate.
As to cops lying to someone they are interviewing-Yes, the Courts have repeatedly held they can do so. Florida allows this BUT will find a Miranda Waiver and statement to be involuntary (and thus suppress the statement) IF the officers make up physical or documentary evidence (like a phony DNA or fingerprint report).
This is not new law or some new tactic. It can be as simple as telling one suspect that the other suspect has admitted both were involved but claims you were the ringleader. Or, telling a burglary suspect that you got prints from the scene. Or, that there was a surveillance video or that DNA has been sent to the lab for testing.
I think, if I were questioned by an officer, I would make the decision THEN, as to whether I was going to talk or not, rather than deciding now that, if and when (if ever), a police officer asks me a question I am going to refuse to cooperate.
As to the attorney's duties, Cmort, a lawyer has a duty to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law. That would require him to give the client the best legal advice he can. That may be to "Shut your mouth!" or it might be to cooperate. Depends on the facts.
Bob
And, further consider that the cop was a third year law student.
And, if you look at it again, the ultimate purpose was to teach the students what advice to give when called by a client, whether the client is a suspect or a witness (since he may actually be or turn into a suspect).
Some wit said those who can-do and those who can't-teach!
While I imagine I might give the same advice if called at home, I think the lesson might be better taught to future lawyers by explaining that, if it is indeed a client, one does not give advice at home and hang up to go back to watching CSI.
One tells the client to tell Officer Friendly that his lawyer will be right there. Then you get off your behind, drive to where the client is, talk in private to him, talk to the cops (that's where relationships are important-if you have lied and bullied the cops you'll get zip) and then talk to your client again so your client can make an informed decision with your advice. Your advice may be not to talk or it may be to cooperate.
As to cops lying to someone they are interviewing-Yes, the Courts have repeatedly held they can do so. Florida allows this BUT will find a Miranda Waiver and statement to be involuntary (and thus suppress the statement) IF the officers make up physical or documentary evidence (like a phony DNA or fingerprint report).
This is not new law or some new tactic. It can be as simple as telling one suspect that the other suspect has admitted both were involved but claims you were the ringleader. Or, telling a burglary suspect that you got prints from the scene. Or, that there was a surveillance video or that DNA has been sent to the lab for testing.
I think, if I were questioned by an officer, I would make the decision THEN, as to whether I was going to talk or not, rather than deciding now that, if and when (if ever), a police officer asks me a question I am going to refuse to cooperate.
As to the attorney's duties, Cmort, a lawyer has a duty to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law. That would require him to give the client the best legal advice he can. That may be to "Shut your mouth!" or it might be to cooperate. Depends on the facts.
Bob
Similar threads
- Locked
