It’s time for police to stop lying to suspects

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/false-confessions-police-interrogation.html

by miles • 5 years ago

198 188 5 years ago

nytimes.com

andrewla2• 5 years ago

Complementary point: It's time for lying to law enforcement to not be a crime.

The nice thing is that this is actually possible to achieve.

iaabtpbtpnn• 5 years ago

It's already legal to lie to the police, at least the state police. You can't lie to the FBI, though.

miles• 5 years ago

It's already legal to lie to the police

Apparently not in Maui County[1]:

Stern was arrested for Rules and Orders, pertaining to face mask violation. ... An additional charge of Unsworn Falsification To Authorities was added.

[1] https://mauinow.com/2021/01/22/maui-police-respond-to-compla...

aidenn0• 5 years ago

IANAL, but my understanding is that in some jurisdictions, lying to the police is Obstruction of Justice.

In addition, lying to the police can be de-facto illegal by being the primary evidence they have that you are guilty of some other crime "Why would s/he lie if s/he weren't guilty?".

mc324• 5 years ago

The FBI is notoriously bad. They make people lie and then use it against them: See Martha Stewart. I’m neutral on her. But the FBI went way overboard on a peanuts case. It’s like they lose face if they lose.

But get Epstein and friends and they let them plea bargain, etc.

jessriedel2• 5 years ago

It's not legal in California:

Under [California Vehicle Code 31], it is a crime to knowingly give false information to a peace officer while the officer is performing his duties

https://www.wklaw.com/providing-false-information-to-a-polic...

No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

Despite being part of the vehicle code, this applies outside of traffic situations as far as I can tell.

linuxftw• 5 years ago

In many places it's not legal to lie to the police or any government official, in the US other otherwise.

valuearb7• 5 years ago

Not just FBI, it’s illegal to lie to any federal agent from any agency.

EPA agent asks you if you dumped some wastewater from your companies property into the sewage system. You, unsure of whether it was legal, lie and say no.

Later it’s established that your dumping was perfectly legal, but you go to prison for your lie.

duxup• 5 years ago

and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used

That's an interesting aspect. I like that it naturally addresses the idea confessions can come from innocent people. If the confession is wrong, took place only due to some undue presser / false promises / lies ... it should be considered that it might be false.

cratermoon• 5 years ago

It's time for police to stop lying, full stop.

- Shake shack poisoned cops: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake...

- Starbucks put a tampon in a cop's coffee: https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon...

- McDonald's wrote "pig" on a cop's cup: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffe...

- Subway put meth in a cop's drink: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/1...

- protesters hid concrete in ice cream containers: https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely...

- Journalist arrested did not identify herself: https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-cov...

- Ballistics don't support AG Cameron's claim Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot officer: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-tay...

- more: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops...

- cops lie: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-ar...

- OC sheriff’s deputies who lied on reports testify that they didn’t know it was illegal: https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-w...

spacemanmatt4• 5 years ago

I really like your material. Do you have a youtube channel?

wonder_er6• 5 years ago

Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_.

It's less of a problem that police lie if everyone adopts the very clear advice given by every legal professional:

Never, ever, talk to police.*

* You can give them your name, and if they ask "what are you doing", a tolerable answer, but any further questions are to be met with "I have been advised to never speak with police, and I can answer no further questions."

Here's an entertaining lecture on the topic, for anyone not convinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s

And he wrote a very short (single-sitting) book titled: "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent": https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/...

Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.

If you're reading this and about to hit the "reply" button explaining why I am wrong, will you please, please say in that comment if you watched _any_ of the lecture by Regent Law Professor James Duane?

danShumway2• 5 years ago

belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature

But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior? I think that what people are asking is just that the standards be applied in both directions.

Do. Not. Talk. To. Police.

Agreed on that point, and yes, I have watched some (but not all) of James Duane's stuff.

wonder_er6• 5 years ago

It is indeed illegal for you to lie to them, and many things you might construe as "not a lie" they could construe as "a lie", so yes, you get jail time for something they're doing in the course of their job.

The standards _don't_ apply in both directions. Any interaction with the police is inherently imbalanced.

They get to stand wherever they want (often in groups), in body armor, with guns and handcuffs and the permission to arrest you (or shoot you!) at any point in time, if you say/do the right mix of things.

If you've _never told them anything_ or _agreed to sit in a room with them_, you're much less likely to be prosecuted for lying to them.

Officer, I do not talk to police.

If they arrest you:

Officer, I do not talk to police.

etc. You might spend a night or a month in jail, but it's better than 5 years for a murder you didn't commit, but the officer was pushing hard to get one more conviction before closing out FY2021

GuB-42• 5 years ago

Whether or not you can lie to the police depends on your jurisdiction.

In most countries, there are laws against self-incrimination. If you have the "right to remain silent", like in the US, it may be illegal to lie to them. If you don't have that right, then you have the right to lie, because otherwise, you could be incriminating yourself.

IANAL, but it is a complex topic.

phkahler2• 5 years ago

> But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior?

I have been having serious issues around this notion that everyone lies 500 times a day - that it normal and super common. I think I'm aware when I lie, and it usually amounts to something more like not sharing my full opinion so not to hurt feelings. But even that isn't common. Do most people really just make up bullshit all day long?

syops6• 5 years ago

The problem with never talk to the police is that they can mess with you more or less with impunity. They can beat you and not worry about retribution from the judicial system. They can arrest you in which the only charge is resisting arrest.

Even if you are treated humanely when you refuse to talk to the police there is the very real possibility they will investigate your life. Given that there are civil liberties lawyers who claim that everyone commits felonies on a regular basis does one really want a big investigation into their life [1]?

The power of the state to mess up your life is such that this advice might not be applicable if the cop you are dealing with is a jerk.

[1] http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-toda...

wonder_er6• 5 years ago

The problem with never talk to the police is that they can mess with you more or less impunity.

Yes! They can and will mess with you. But if you think talking to them will _reduce the chances_ of them messing you, many legal experts would disagree.

Talking to them gives them additional avenues by with they might claim that you committed the crime, you're guilty, and they get to `solved_crimes_this_month += 1`.

It's all risk mitigation.

They might treat you illegally and immorally, for sure. They're not _less_ likely to do this if you consent to "a conversation", they're _more_ likely to do this.

So, again, don't talk to police without a lawyer present.

When you're lawyer gets on scene, he'll say "don't talk to them", so you'll continue to _not talk to them._

Many folks on HN that live in the USA, are statistically likely to not have particularly bad interactions with the police, but that means we have a chance (or even obligation) to normalize self-protective behaviors that persons who are not quite as (white|male|upper class| privileged) as we are might suffer repercussions for exercising.

I.E. if it spreads that "privileged people don't talk to police" then "marginalized people not talking to police" are less likely to suffer abuse from said police.

pstuart• 5 years ago

they can mess with you more or less with impunity

a.k.a you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride

DavidAdams2• 5 years ago

You're right about this. In more adversarial cases it's probably best to tell the police that you will talk to them, but only in a formal interview with your lawyer present (even if this isn't true, and you don't want to talk to them, and you don't have a lawyer and don't intend to get one). Telling them this, though, doesn't give them as much license to get nasty.

Spooky232• 5 years ago

Most of the "felony a day" things are really critiques of overbroad laws, especially at the federal level. "Honest Services" laws were a big part of that narrative when federal prosecutors were using it in public integrity cases. It's mostly myth.

The issue with unnecessarily interacting with police is that you never know what is actually happening. It's like dealing with a salesmen, they are trained do control situations and question people every day.

In many circumstances you have nothing to add, nothing to gain, and you incur risk that something you say or do makes an unfortunate connection. Nobody is going to beat or arrest you for saying "no thanks".

deepspace• 5 years ago

I keep seeing the "everyone commits multiple felonies a day" quote, but all the examples quoted are of people destroying evidence, dealing in protected goods and so on. Are there any actual good examples of ordinary law-abiding citizens going about their mundane daily lives while also inadvertently committing multiple felonies?

dredmorbius2• 5 years ago

Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".

The latter advice is valid, and I agree with it. The change in law, with both sanctions (against officers and departments transacting such conduct) and exclusions on all evidence and testimony resulting, would be vastly more effective.

wonder_er6• 5 years ago

Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".

I don't think the legal sanctions would actually _do_ anything, because legal sanctions _never_ do anything. Cops still commit crimes, however you define "commit crimes", _every day_ with zero penalty.

So, any argument that says "we should ask police to stop lying, and if they lie, we'll write them up!" sounds like a non-starter.

On the flip side, we don't need 100% awareness of "don't talk to police", we just need awareness to trickle into the percentage of society that has encounters with police every year.

Supposedly, there's 700k police officers in the USA right now.[0]

Each of those probably interacts with at least 5 people a day, but there's very much a 80:20 principle in _multiple_ contacts with police in a year.

So, I'd settle with 200mm people in the USA knowing this principle. That's a measly 2/3rds of the US population. A good and entertaining music video that highlighted this fact would get us half-way there in one fell swoop.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enf...

jedmeyers• 5 years ago

"and I can answer no further questions."

Of course you CAN answer further questions since you can speak. Thus you have just lied to a law enforcement officer.

wonder_er6• 5 years ago

Ha! Proved my point exactly. James Duane has specific recommended phrases.

Maybe the use of:

"and I will answer no further questions"

would keep me out of jail!

billforsternz2• 5 years ago

I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture but I don't need to know this blanket Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police. advice is absurd. For example: What if I need to report a crime?

bambax• 5 years ago

I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture

Then do.

tclancy• 5 years ago

If you have this much trouble with context, I would highly suggest hiring an attorney before commenting on the Internet.

mnd999• 5 years ago

If you need to report a crime, do so. Get your crime report and claim on your insurance and move on.

TheRealDunkirk2• 5 years ago

Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.

My wife watches a lot of those crime drama shows, and the defendants who simply refuse to participate in the charade of the interrogation room harassment are the ones that walk.

There's a lot of awareness now about the dramatically-increased "interaction" between police and African Americans. What I can't understand is why -- given the decades of "heightened relations" between them -- this mantra hasn't become ingrained in the collective consciousness.

username904• 5 years ago

Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_.

Not sure why you'd think that, the police isn't allowed to lie or deceive the suspect in Sweden like they are in USA.

Sweden, lying in interrogations is not allowed:

https://advokaternas.se/2020/06/07/far-polisen-ljuga-i-forho...

USA, lying in interrogations is allowed:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/05/jn

dfxm12• 5 years ago

In Frazier v. Cupp (1969), the Supreme Court made it lawful for the police to present false evidence. “The victim’s blood was found on your pillow,” “You failed the polygraph,”... are some common but brazen lies told.

The article goes on to to talk about a NY state bill that is trying to bar police deception in the interrogation room and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used.

If you want a justice system more based on finding the truth, you can ask your local politicians to to bring up a similar bill.

lostcolony• 5 years ago

This.

Lies like these may pressure someone to create a false confession to get a plea, because it sounds to them like despite not being guilty, they're going to be found guilty.

That is a huge issue.

nullc2• 5 years ago

It's often coupled with a setup to get you to explain why the action (which you're now convinced you'll be found guilty of) wasn't really that bad... how it was self-defence, etc.

cool_dude85• 5 years ago

And if I'm not mistaken, can't the cops even testify about how you reacted to this kind of BS in your trial?

"I told him the victim's blood was found on his pillow, and he barely even flinched. This guy was really cold-blooded."

throwaway0a5e• 5 years ago

The cynic in me says that police agencies are only entertaining the idea of these reforms because the dragnet is so good it has mostly supplanted false convictions as the supplier of evidence for otherwise bogus convictions with the added benefit of the police not depending on the suspect for any of it.

Regardless, government officials of any agency should not be permitted to lie to people except in the narrowest of circumstances (i.e. undercover cop and little more).

adamcstephens• 5 years ago

Narrowest of circumstances tend to become truck size loopholes.

galaxyLogic3• 5 years ago

As an example I think it should be especially illegal for the president to lie to the nation. The job of the president is to lead the nation. But if the president is lying to the nation s/he is misleading the nation. Not kosher. Whereas normal people lying is not such a big deal because they can mislead only a few people. The president can mislead the whole nation.

astrange2• 5 years ago

"Illegal" doesn't apply to the president, who is above the law[1]. Instead, Congress can impeach and remove him for anything they want, whether it's a law or not.

[1] although not above DC law https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-pre...

jmann99999• 5 years ago

Twenty years ago I read the article "Never talk to the police." Later that year, the police came to my girlfriend's apartment and asked questions about a homicide. I was there and when they asked if they could come in, I said "No." There is no upside to allowing them in. "We'll answer any questions here" I remember saying.

We didn't have anything to hide, but you never know what law you may've broken. You never know what they may say and how you will react. The system sets up an adversarial relationship.

It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to play by the same rules as regular people.

Justsignedup• 5 years ago

Another advice:

Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY. Basically first if they ask you anything, say "I will happily comply with any questioning if you give me immunity in writing to this case or anything resulting from my answers."

The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back.

Point is, ask for immunity.

spacemanmatt4• 5 years ago

My understanding of the law is, cops don't have the authority to grant immunity. I would want to get that promise from a prosecutor, minimum.

powersnail5• 5 years ago

Can cops give you immunity?

And given that cops can legally lie, that promise of immunity seems empty.

jancsika• 5 years ago

In the anecdote the student did ask for immunity, but only after talking to a lawyer first. It was the lawyer's advice to ask for immunity.

The bigger lesson was not to ask for immunity, but to refuse to say anything without your lawyer present. (...and then, obviously, to only say things if your lawyer advises you to do so.)

u678u• 5 years ago

IRS never calls, it was a scammer. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/how-to-know-its-really-the-irs-...

jakelazaroff3• 5 years ago

Are you a lawyer? This seems like pretty irresponsible advice to give from an armchair, tbh.

IANAL, but if you're arrested, just ask for a lawyer. Don't try to play weird games like asking for immunity. The police have played them way more than you, you don't know the legal system and you will probably lose.

sandworm1013• 5 years ago

> Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY.

No no no, a thousand times no. Immunity is a very nuanced thing that, in the US especially, is beyond the understanding of laypersons. Talk only to and through YOUR lawyer. Don't go anywhere near any talk of "immunity" without several days to discuss the matter with paid legal counsel.

tehwebguy• 5 years ago

Have your attorney ask for immunity and confirm to you that it’s then safe to talk with police (your attorney will just say, “No!!!!” when you ask them)

caturopath4• 5 years ago

Always talk to the police -- AFTER YOUR LAWYER TELLS YOU TO SAY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY

FTFY ;)

A cop can't grant you immunity, and most people wouldn't know what it meant if you did have an immunity agreement.

valuearb7• 5 years ago

Asking for immunity can be used against you in court.

“Officer, was there anything strange about the defendants response to finding out his ex-roomate had been murdered?”

“Well he immediately asked for immunity to cover his actions in the crime”

Never talk to the police, refer them to your lawyer.

rdtsc• 5 years ago

How would I know what immunity looks like?

Police can and do lie to people to get them to confess to stuff. "We'll go easy on you, we promise", or "this is off the record, you can tell us anything now" etc. So what stops them from saying something like "sure, you got immunity, now let us in".

dragonwriter• 5 years ago

The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back.

The IRS would never call you in a situation where that would matter, and in fact they try very hard to make that public since fake IRS enforcement calls are a very common scam.

So the cop was either lying to you, or was caught in a scam and accidentally scared them off by showing they weren't going to immediately buckle under, without even realizing it was a scam.

Ask for a lawyer, not immunity. And take legal advice from your lawyer, not from cops who, as a class, have neither the knowledge nor the motivation to give good advice.

jpalomaki• 5 years ago

Related video from Youtube: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

Long time since I watched it. I think one argument was that it’s very easy to make a mistake in what you tell and it might sound bad later on.

35fbe7d3d5b94• 5 years ago

There were about four arguments that he quite persuasively made: you might make a mistake, you might inadvertently say something that is misinterpreted, you may be completely honest and truthful but an unreliable third party makes a claim that contradicts your statement...

It's an incredibly important video that shows why there is no good that comes out of police interactions.

watwut3• 5 years ago

I am actually thankful to people who talked to police and allowed then to decomposed few mafias that operated where I live.

Good thing for everyone. That includes victims who had courage and took the risk of retaliation and perpetrators who talked about former associates.

JadeNB• 5 years ago

It is a good thing for everyone if you can talk to the police and not have to worry about that putting you in jeopardy from the police. Since police choose not to offer you that protection, and are legally supported in doing so, it is the police, not the individual refusants, who have brought about this sad state of affairs where the right advice is always not to talk to them.

guerby• 5 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

"Don't Talk to the Police"

Old video but still funny and very instructive.

rubyist5eva• 5 years ago

I don't know if it's related - but there is a video "Don't Talk To The Police" which is probably the most important video anyone could ever wathch.

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

kemiller2002• 5 years ago

If you are in the U.S. this is absolutely the most important video you can watch. It very clearly details how the system really works, and why it is always bad to talk to the police without a lawyer present.

Note I didn't say, "Never talk to the police." You need someone with you that can understand the law and how work within the system. You never know when they might consider you part of the suspect pool. You can be helpful, just be helpful while protecting your own best interests.

cortesoft2• 5 years ago

There is no upside to allowing them in

I get what you are saying, and agree with your decision to not talk to the police, but it isn’t true that there can be NO upside to talking to the police.

For all the bad things police do, they DO also solve some crimes and arrest some dangerous people. If someone killed one of my loved ones, I would hope the police would be able to find, arrest, and successfully prosecute the murderer.

If no witness will speak to the police, it makes solving a homicide much more difficult.

This is why the current approach to policing is so awful. We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.

Jkvngt2• 5 years ago

Police barely ever solve crimes. Murder, the most serious crime, is hardly ever solved. There is no fixing the situation with talking to police, how would you fix the system? It would take decades of action on the part of the police to regain the public’s trust. One wrong move by one cop, one time would reset that back to zero.

techsupporter2• 5 years ago

This is why the current approach to policing is so awful. We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.

Exactly. Addressing your example, as it's a good one: To be blunt, me risking the legal standing or overall safety of my family just to bring your family some closure is not a trade-off I'm willing to make. I'm genuinely sorry because I would absolutely like to help, but the downside risk is too great.

I am in an incredibly privileged position in our society, and I've gotten grief at the hands of the police while I was being a "good citizen" and offering information. Never again. If they want to know something we will be doing it in full view of the public out on the street or with my lawyer present.

Nbox9• 5 years ago

The current homicide clearance rate is 61.4% (That’s only arrest, not a conviction).

If resolving the adversarial relationship between citizens and police would improve that then it’s something we should explore. Right now I’m not sure how that could happen, given the deep problems with American Law Enforcement, Correctional, and Justice systems.

caturopath4• 5 years ago

> There is no upside to allowing them in
I get what you are saying, and agree with your decision to not talk to the police

They DID talk to the police. (They said, "We'll answer any questions here")

Bringing them inside your home really doesn't have an upside. I don't invite armed strangers inside my home as a rule, and making an exception is unnecessary.

powersnail5• 5 years ago

"Don't talk to the police" is a bit of a slogan, rather than really saying zero word when you can help.

I'll be happy to provide the police with any information as long as I'm under the advisement of a lawyer.

I'll willingly testify in a court.

The problem is talking to the police directly by myself, as the police naturally see all related people as suspects. You are a witness in your own eyes; you are a suspect in theirs.

dkarl• 5 years ago

I agree. Not talking to the cops is an easy policy to adopt if, like most of us, you live in a pretty safe neighborhood with nothing but victimless drug crimes, but a lot of people who have the most reason to fear the police also have the most reason to need them to do their job effectively. It's not so simple for them. If they talk to the police, maybe they go to jail, but if they don't talk to the police, maybe the next house that gets burgled is their mom's. Maybe the next car that gets stolen is theirs. It's a shitty bind to be in.

idoubtit• 5 years ago

We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.

I don't think I will live long enough to see it, at least in my country. The French police is less dangerous than the US one, but they're still dangerous, even for those that committed no crime, and and not only for minorities. A (white) delivery driver was recently strangled to death by police officers in Paris in broad daylight, despite repeatedly telling them he could not breath. No administrative penalty was applied, though an inquiry has started due to the large popular outcry.

In a broader perspective, the worst terrorist attack in French history was in Paris in autumn... not 2015 but 1961. The French police wanted to terrify the Algerian people (which had French citizenship at that time). Police killed 150-200 unarmed people in a single night. The man in charge (M. Papon), like many other members of the police, had played an important role in the deportation of Jews during WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

There was a recent commotion when French policemen could be heard joking about this event, especially about "drowning the Algerians". Some sociological studies prove that the racist terms dating from the Algeria war are still pervasive in the French police more than 60 years after the war.

rurp• 5 years ago

This makes total sense and it's frustrating that many police want to have it both ways. They want good faith cooperation from potential witnesses, while also being free to lie to and manipulate potential suspects. If they want better cooperation from the public then they need to act in better faith themselves.

clankyclanker• 5 years ago

How do they distinguish between witness and suspect?

landemva• 5 years ago

To have the police play by same rules as regular people, we need to remove "government immunity" which the USSC created out of thin air in the early 1970s.

Why would police and city councils change anything, when after somebody sues the government files a motion to dismiss because of government immunity and the motion is granted? There won't be accountability until this changes.

jstarfish• 5 years ago

you never know what law you may've broken.

Yeah. Even innocuous things like having a hole in the wall changes the line of inquiry from whatever crime is being investigated to a domestic violence or child protective services intervention on your account...all because you wanted to help.

It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to grant by default some amount of immunity to witnesses in order to encourage their cooperation.

Nobody should be punished by the justice system for cooperating-- witnesses already risk retribution from whoever they're willing to make a statement against.

mc324• 5 years ago

This will come true once all criminals stop lying and confess honestly -which is to say the day will never come.

spacemanmatt4• 5 years ago

The set of all criminals includes a lot of cops, so maybe your angle here is just a poorly-considered one.

mc324• 5 years ago

Lying is human nature. You have to work around it.

ohdannyboy• 5 years ago

The problem is that the investigation is about figuring out who is actually the criminal. Cops deal with mostly bad people. Actually innocent people who get caught up in the criminal justice system are relatively rare -- ask any defense lawyer. This makes investigators incredibly jaded and willing to treat everyone as guilty because it's usually right (and even if they didn't do it they did something).

This is what makes your take on this question so dangerous. This is not about how cops are allowed to treat people they know are criminals, this is about how the cops are allowed to figure out if someone is a criminal in the first place. Telling an innocent person "we have DNA and video of you committing the crime, just plea down to manslaughter and you'll be out of prison by the time your kid graduates highschool" puts them in a devastating position. They may decide that they've been framed and just confess because they think they either do it today or face mandatory life without parole. Even if the majority of people put in this position actually did the crime it's still wrong. Same goes for beating confessions out of people.

TheCoelacanth• 5 years ago

It is already illegal for anyone to lie to the cops.

ed25519FUUU• 5 years ago

Another symptom of poor executive-power education in our country.

Constitutional and civic right literacy should be required for all high school graduates. People must know their rights.

Come to think of it, constitutional literacy should also be part of a required knowledge test for all elected officials. Or else we’ll continue down the slow acquiescing of foundational civic rights, and the punishment for infringing on them will get lighter and lighter.

By the way, the person who outright lied to the FISA courts to obtain a warrant on an American citizen was sentenced to probation today. Not even a slap on the wrist.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith...

mattzito• 5 years ago

In the excellent true crime book, "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets", David Simon (future creator of The Wire), talks about the Miranda warning in the context of interrogations. When originally introduced, law enforcement bemoaned that this would hamstring their ability to gain confessions from suspects, because any sensible criminal would simply ask for a lawyer. He then goes on to explain that wily police detectives, instead, were able to use Miranda as a tool - "this is something we have to get out of the way so we can get you home" and "look, you can get a lawyer, but then we can't figure this out right here".

He points out that lying to suspects is both a tool and a risk - if you tell a suspect that there was blood found on his shoes, and the suspect knows that he wasn't wearing those shoes during the crime, he knows you have nothing.

I highlight this because it's fine and good to ban lying to suspects, but not all lies are strictly untrue, and it's possible to use partially true statements to one's benefit in an interrogation. Simon points out that interrogations, by their very nature, are coercive, and if we really want to protect the rights of suspects, mandating an attorney present at an interview is the only way to ensure that.

valuearb7• 5 years ago

I’m fine with cops lying if you’ve been charged with a crime, and established the antagonistic relationship, but not before.

When beat cops lie to ordinary citizens about what their rights are, it just builds up an enmity that makes it more difficult for community policing to work.

VikingCoder• 5 years ago

This flowchart on how to correctly plead the fifth haunts me. That the courts have allowed the law to get this convoluted is a travesty.

https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

caturopath4• 5 years ago

That flow-chart just overcomplicates its information and overall is laid out extremely poorly (probably to make a point).

There's very little unintuitive there, and most of the actionable advice is "Say you're not going to answer any questions and that you want a lawyer and then actually shut up."

TheRealDunkirk2• 5 years ago

It's ALSO time to stop overcharging crimes to get people to plead out, and skip the trial part of due process. Not only is it unethical, it ought to be un-Constitutional.

analog31• 5 years ago

The article suggests that the police should have to prove that the confession is true. I would go further and say that this should apply to guilty pleas and plea bargains as well. The police should have to prove that the plea is justified by the evidence, and disclose all evidence at their disposal to the court. If you're pleading to a reduced charge, the police should have to prove both charges. After the evidence has been presented and shown to be sufficient, then the court decides if the plea is justified, what kind of trial to hold, and what sentence to mete out.

It's supposed to be hard to convict people.

ckosidows• 5 years ago

The Moth presented a story by Prinna Boudreau which is relevant to this topic and well worth a listen if you want some more perspective.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3pGYI4CqJysBVgEDf2qacw?si=z...

haspoken• 5 years ago

http://archive.is/l7loc

ranprieur• 5 years ago

Every time an article says "it's time," it means the right time was far in the past, and the politically possible time is far in the future.

graeme• 5 years ago

Can anyone in Canada or the UK or other common law jurisdictions comment if “don’t talk to the police without a lawyer” is good policy in those jurisdictions, or is it only good policy in the US where the legal system is deranged?

It can be hard to figure out where to take lessons from american advice and where the advice is specific to US idiosyncrasies.

username904• 5 years ago

Canada has similar laws as USA, UK has the same situation as most of Europe where you can lie to the police and they can't lie to you. So I think the advice is mostly for countries like USA and Canada with reverse rights, that is the police has more rights than you. In Europe where you have more rights than the police talking to them is safer than talking to a civilian.

smokey_circles• 5 years ago

Not an American, but I have some questions

* What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't)

* Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around?

* What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism?

* If the purpose of prison is to pay your time to the community, why do you have a box that must be ticked that seems to push people back towards crime?

I don't think arguing the police are the problem does anything to address much larger systemic issues that seem to have much more dramatic consequences at scale.

AnimalMuppet• 5 years ago

The jury in 2021 serves the same purpose that it did in the 18th century, especially in criminal trials. A jury means that the government has to prove its case, not just to one person who's employed by the government (the judge), but to some random people off the street. The purpose is to make it harder for the government to just put people away "because we said so" - outside the rule of law. It also can serve as a brake on insane or unjust laws, though it does not always do so.

Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.

ardy42• 5 years ago

* What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't)

I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury.

IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option).

* Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around?

Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free.

* What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism?

I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.

buffaloo2• 5 years ago

10 years ago, I could get behind the anti-cop bit as things had gone too far police state, but today with dangerous crazed chaos in the streets and the being made to do all the kneeling and feet washing... Anybody who can stand working as a cop deserves a medal.

moate3• 5 years ago

Can you spin this thought out a little more? Do you think cops have gotten LESS power over the last 10 years? Do you believe their unions suddenly stopped being some of the strongest political forces?

Also, cops make about 15K more than the average job(1) and that's because they're EXTREMELY well compensated in blue-states (presumably where they are made to wash the most feet?). They also still have their qualified immunity, so it's not like it's gotten that much harder to "do the job". Violent crime has been trending down for decades(2). There has not been a massive spike in "crazed chaos in the streets" people just think there is because reasons.

Nah dude, hold cops accountable. Just like any other public servant.

1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/polic... 2- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...

buffaloo2• 5 years ago

Good point. Crime is down. Sounds like policing is working. Give the boys in blue a raise. Anyone who thinks police are overpaid should apply for the job.

bokohut• 5 years ago

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sir John Dalberg-Acton

The beauty of the internet is that it does not forget and all the proof one needs it out there if one knows where to look. Many people lack morals and ethics and seek only to better themselves using their ‘power’ and some law enforcement entities are “absolutely” no different. One may believe the law enforcement as well as government is always correct and infallible yet everyone reading this at this very moment in time likely recognizes this fallacy. Each reader can likely provide their own unique individual point of proof as evidence, see my link and provide your own. In my past business endeavors I have personally witnessed a ‘fall from power’ event around someone's pure egotistical narcissistic greed so from my personal experience I would encourage everyone to ALWAYS get it in writing and save EVERY form of communication. You NEVER know when you will need it NOR the value it will make/save you in that future.

To prove my point from my words above bringing all this together in the topic at hand you may find great interest in this yt link.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4LHak5WZY

Be honest, be kind, be true, be you! All others will be discovered.

Stay Healthy!

It’s time for police to stop lying to suspects

Related Stories