Don’t Talk to Police (2012) [video]

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

by Aerbil313 • 3 years ago

234 196 3 years ago

Also don't talk to federal agents.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to you they get evidence of you lying

SV_BubbleTime2• 3 years ago

Michael Flynn has entered the chat.

If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy, the actual process of what happened to him and what he was charged with is pretty crazy.

He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But, they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn’t a crime, and he didn’t actually do.

Also on the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147

tptacek• 3 years ago

As a member of President Trump's transition team, Flynn made a pair of direct diplomatic requests to Russia's ambassador to the United States (Russia complied with both requests). Later, during an FBI counterintelligence investigation centering on Russia, Flynn lied twice about having had those diplomatic conversations at all. The case was later dropped because the entire overarching investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) --- which did not center on Flynn --- was dropped.

Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's a great example of the logic of this thread and the post: don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their investigation, they'll convict you for it.

HyperSane6• 3 years ago

Michael Flynn is literally a traitor to the US.

Sniffnoy• 3 years ago

It's worse than that -- often their MO is to deliberately get people rattled so they say something false (that the FBI already knew was false), then charge them for that. It's stupid, but it's currently the [courts' interpretation of] the law. (The written law has a materiality requirement, but this has been interpreted so loosely as to be irrelevant.)

https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-editio...

kkielhofner2• 3 years ago

With this law on the books they often operate under the same practice/advice you hear given to attorneys in court: "only ask questions you already know the answer to".

In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already know the truth behind at least some of them. They are attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for misleading/false statements in the event the original investigation doesn't pan out to charges.

jimbob45• 3 years ago

Is there no Miranda equivalent for federal agents?

Spooky23• 3 years ago

There is, so you have the right to remain silent. The difference is that federal law makes it illegal to lie to a federal agent.

Lying to the police is dumb in general because it can be used against you. In the federal sense it’s dumber as it is a felony in of itself.

This is often cited as an abuse of power etc. I think there’s a lot of nuance.

kevin_thibedeau• 3 years ago

This is how Martha Stewart got sent to the klink, not for insider trading.

raincom5• 3 years ago

Beria's law: 'show me the man and I'll show you the crime'. That's how they get you.

LgWoodenBadger• 3 years ago

Civil rights are a core educational experience that is sorely and fundamentally lacking in the US educational system.

hartator• 3 years ago

lacking in the US educational system

In most other countries, cops can ask for your ID and basic questions and detain you if you are not complying.

hknmtt3• 3 years ago

they most certainly cannot detain you without a cause. in the context of what you wrote, if you do not have your id, which is not mandatory to carry, they can detain you for 48 hours in order to establish your identity, but if they fail they have to let you go.

ajuc• 3 years ago

How law is actually used matters much more than these technicalities.

USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, police brutality and police murdering people is a bigger concern than in most places where people have to show ID on cue.

This is one of these "liberty cargo cult" rights, like the right to bear arms or not having 1 unique identifier. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't really help in the rare cases for which it was designed, and it makes things harder on the happy path.

maerF0x0• 3 years ago

His book is a good read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri...

He actually updates his stance a touch from the content in the video. Particularly in not just invoking your 5th amendment (the right not self incriminate), but also the 6th (the right to a lawyer before being interrogated)

Also this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" kind of conversation, see another top item on HN today:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 ( People Can Be Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened (psychologicalscience.org) )

AlbertCory5• 3 years ago

The cops say, "if you have nothing to hide" and also "if you don't come in, I can't help you." Fortunately, Daryl saw through the latter one and didn't come in.

Yes, it's another plug for one of my Substack articles:

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/baby-please-dont-go

PaulHoule2• 3 years ago

Note cops are trained to assume that cagey people could be guilty. (1) I wonder if this guy wants to make more work for himself and people in his profession, and (2) Black and White people might get very different results from this and other advice.

mplanchard13• 3 years ago

No matter who you are, talking to the police is a bad idea. This is a constant piece of advice from every lawyer AND POLICE OFFICER I’ve ever known. I have several cops in my family, and they all advise to never talk to the cops.

kmoser2• 3 years ago

While you have the right to remain silent, I remember reading somewhere that you have to actively invoke that right (by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent") for your silence to be considered an invocation of that right, and not merely suspicious behavior, an implicit admission of guilt, or obstruction of justice.

This is actually reprehensible, since invoking a right should mean actually engaging in it (e.g. remaining silent), with no explanation necessary.

Another topic that everybody should know about is juror nullification.

sgjohnson• 3 years ago

Another topic that everybody should know about is juror nullification.

Jurors who are aware of jury nullification are routinely dismissed.

Sargos• 3 years ago

by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent"

This needs to be rather structured as well as the cops can ignore your statement unless it has a proper syntax and names the 5th element directly. Example: "give me a lawyer dog" doesn't cut it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...)

dragonwriter• 3 years ago

While you have the right to remain silent, I remember reading somewhere that you have to actively invoke that right (by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent") for your silence to be considered an invocation of that right, and not merely suspicious behavior, an implicit admission of guilt, or obstruction of justice.

This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple levels. First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right. Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.

You may be confusing the right to remain silent with the right to have counsel present during questioning, which must be explicilty invoked for questioning without counsel present and its fruits to be excluded. They are separate, but related (as invoking the right to counsel also narrows the ways police can pressure you to waive the rightbto remain silent without legally tainting anything they get out of it.)

raincom5• 3 years ago

When agents interrogate people in their custody, yes, miranda rights are read to the detained. What about non-custodial interviews? People are asked to come for interviews without being detained. In such cases, one is not read miranda rights. This is where people get trapped by the law enforcement: non-custodial interviews/interrogations are often conducted at home/work/private offices, even police stations. For more, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Salinas v. Texas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

lelanthran3• 3 years ago

Note cops are trained to assume that cagey people could be guilty.

You don't need training for that. Most everyone assumes that a cagey person is hiding something :-/

2023throwawayy• 3 years ago

One of the best videos on the internet. A true classic with great advice.

dang• 3 years ago

Related. Others?

Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)

Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)

Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)

Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)

Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)

belter• 3 years ago

Don't Talk to the Police Part 2 - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M

ccooffee2• 3 years ago

This was a really disappointing video. It is a 30 minute infomercial for a book that constantly says "what if <x>? well, you'll have to read the book".

hknmtt3• 3 years ago

remember, the police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it. they don't care who they punish as long as they can add your number to their statistics. they are NOT your friends. that's just childhood brainwashing.

einpoklum• 3 years ago

The police' main purpose is to protect the social order internally, by enforcing social relations (foremost being property and the authority of state institutions).

As for punishing crime - technically, the police is not supposed to decide whether crimes have been committed, nor to meet out out punishment for them. Really is a different thing, of course - but even then, the punishment is for police-undesirable behavior.

mrweasel• 3 years ago

Not sure what the English term is, but Denmark operates with the "three separations of power". Parliament makes the laws, the police enforce them and the judicial system punished. The police, for good and bad, is never suppose to decide whether or not a law is right or wrong, how it's punished and to what extend.

If the police have become a punishing force, or even make the rules, then something has gone very wrong. Now even in civilized societies things sometimes goes wrong, e.g. the parliament provides police with too broad a framework to operate within, in an attempt to be "tough on crime" or attempt to dictate the framework of the judicial system to ensure a minimum sentencing. It's just rare that the police force itself is to blame. Blame mostly falls back to the people writing the laws.

hyperman1• 3 years ago

The USA police is a bit of an exception here, being overly militarized, not kept in check by judges and politicians, and historically having a side job of fugitive slave catchers.

Around the world, the core job of the police is more: Restore the public peace. They can forgive transgressions in public if you demonstrate further disturbance of peace will cease.

They have to maintain a reasonable level of fairness, or they get overrun by vigilantes. But as long as the illusion of fairness holds good enough, they can and will crush powerless people in the wheels of justice.

neural_thing• 3 years ago

You have to be more specific than "around the world" here. I grew up in a country where the "core job of the police" is to extort bribes. My guess is that's pretty similar to the experience of the majority of the people living today.

ajross• 3 years ago

Corrupt law enforcement is hardly a US invention. That's frankly just silly. In fact US police are... middle of the pack at worst. It's true that there are some policy implications in the US that seem weird, in particular the level of weaponry deployed and the politicization of activist slogans like "Defund", but if anything that speaks to police behavior in the US being more criticized and more constrained.

America is fine, basically. Yes, cops are empowered bullies who do bad things. But that's been true for thousands of years. We're farther down the path to trying to fix that, not behind.

some_random2• 3 years ago

It's so funny reading this after scrolling past a bunch of Western Europeans (what I assume you mean by "around the world", since that's almost always what's meant) talking about how they can be arrested for not carrying identification on them at all times. As an American, it sounds like your judges and politicians haven't even tried to keep them in check.

modeless• 3 years ago

It's funny, I always hear about how US police are militarized, but then when I go to Europe I see actual military soldiers carrying assault rifles while doing what seems to me like police duty all over the place in major cities. That's not something I see here.

gumby2• 3 years ago

“No one likes a cop until they need one”. Cops are not inherently your foe, but that does not imply that they are in any way inherently your friend, even when you are part of the “in group”.

In the US the relatively recent shift to use of the term “law enforcement” both reflects and drives a self-destructive nature in the broad culture.

Your insightful point, “The police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it” has several implications.

First is that even if you have a positive view of the cops (and if you are not in an “out group” you should) you still should follow this advice. If you’re not chatting with your next door neighbor the cop at a bbq, what you are is an unpleasant barrier to getting their job done with a minimum of hassle. Like you think of Jira or Confluence.

Another implication is to understand that their role, in cultural norm, in who it attracts to the job, and simply the cumulative impact of what they are exposed to, drives what I will euphemistically call “destructive impact”. We need cops like we need the weather, but that doesn’t mean we don’t take steps to deal with the destructive force of storms, and even to minimize storm generation.

Unfortunately the US is in a phase where they think the more brutality the better. In that the cops correctly reflect what they are asked to do.

sneak4• 3 years ago

Cops are not inherently your foe

From a game theoretical POV this is false; no good can come from speaking to them, and only bad can.

reducesuffering• 3 years ago

I must've just imagined the police preventing my neighbors' home burglary in the act, and stopping the time last week a man stripped naked and tried to assault the ladies at the nail salon. I'm the brainwashed one

seattle_spring• 3 years ago

As an extremely relevant and related topic, it's Shut the Fuck Up Friday [1], time to review the script!

[1] https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o

Aerbil3132• 3 years ago

Haha. First time submitting a link (and it blowing up, it’s on page 4!). I’m in wonder how I did unleash all this stream of comments, as my eyes are fixed on the karma point, reloading the page, watching it increase like it never did before, despising myself for that at the same time for falling to the gamification and thinking it’s time to nuke my HN account.

Garrrrrr• 3 years ago

reposting good videos gets you a long way I guess. 'karma' isn't very real here or anywhere

Aerbil3132• 3 years ago

I didn’t have much of an intention of boosting my karma btw. I just saw this video linked on HN today in another thread.

AlecSchueler4• 3 years ago

A friend of mine recently had quite a bad experience asking the police for help with directions as he was traveling through the Netherlands.

He was trying to figure out where he was using the map on a bus stop and approached a nearby police car to ask for assistance.

They demanded his ID which he was not carrying at the time. He explained that it was in his bag at the place where he was staying and they said he needed to be able to identify himself, so they arrested him on the spot and he was not free again until the following morning. As a result he missed a ferry and had to spend the money booking another one.

netule• 3 years ago

It's strange, but you must be able to identify yourself if you're over the age of 14 [1] in The Netherlands. Having lived in the US for 20 years now, this also seems a bit draconian to me, but I didn't think much of it while growing up over there.

[1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identit...

a2tech• 3 years ago

That would definitely be surprising for most Americans. Many of us (like my wife) never carry id unless they plan on driving.

yieldcrv3• 3 years ago

Its interesting how generic “travel” advice is incompatible with so many countries

the generic advice is “leave your passport locked at the hotel so you dont get it stolen by pickpockets”

but also “never not have your passport on you because the local government wants to check it at any time”

how do you all reconcile that on a day to day basis?

morsch2• 3 years ago

It's the same in Germany, but I still wouldn't expect the police to ask for my ID when asking for directions. The fact that you need to be able to identify yourself when asked doesn't mean that they are supposed to ask for it for every interaction.

gymbeaux2• 3 years ago

I could give a damn about 2A/the right to bear arms, but if I had to ID myself to police for asking for directions…

dudefeliciano• 3 years ago

i would agree if someone is suspected of committing or witnessing a crime but to require ID for simply asking directions, and then getting arrested, seems like exactly the kind of overreach that gives a bad image to cops.

AlecSchueler4• 3 years ago

True, I don't think of it much now that I've been living here for a few years. But it's scary how easily someone can be caught out while traveling through the NL from one part of Schengen to another where these rules don't apply.

wegwerp• 3 years ago

Honestly, lots of us Dutchies leave the house from time to time without ID. I don’t even think to carry it when I go running, or to the gym. And most of the time if you interact with the police while out without your ID it isn’t really a problem.

But that is of course only reliably true if you’re Dutch. The right kind of Dutch, too. Autochtoon used to be considered the polite term. (I always found it rather menacing personally.)

If you have contact with a police agent and you’re speaking English or are brown, yeah, better have that ID.

Of course anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time - maybe the agents the OP’s friend approached were conducting surveillance and interpreted an approach by a stranger without ID as suspicious under the circumstances. But I have also simply seen lots of differences in how police decide to enforce the law based on whom they are dealing with.

rjh293• 3 years ago

Carrying a passport is a legal requirement in many countries, especially common for tourists. But if I accidentally left it in my hotel? I don't think I would get arrested on the spot. Worst case they'd take me to the hotel so I could produce it.

I suspect there is more to this story - i.e. they had a reason to think he was an illegal immigrant or on drugs or something - of course that reason could be something racist or completely unfounded, but I presume they don't just arrest anyone who forgets their ID.

HyperSane6• 3 years ago

That is very stupid.

robador• 3 years ago

This pisses me off to no small amount (as a Dutchman). Yes, the law says you have to be able to identity yourself, but you can only be asked if there's a good reason. Not a lawyer, but asking for directions is very much not a good reason (even when not speaking Dutch).

Interestingly the English explanation is much more ambiguous than the Dutch:

"These officials [police] may not ask to see proof of identity without giving a reason. " https://www.government.nl/topics/identification-documents/co...

Whereas in the Dutch version:

"De politie mag alleen uw identificatiebewijs vragen als daar een goede reden voor is." Translation: "The police may only ask for your identification if there's a good reason to do so" Typical.

I would lodge a complaint: https://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/klacht-over-de-politie-in... (page in Dutch)

paulpauper3• 3 years ago

this again? it is good advice sometimes, but also good advice if you want a long ride to the station because you refused to identify yourself and give information.

dccoolgai2• 3 years ago

Recent case in point: Walt Nauta, who got charged along with Trump. Had he just kept his mouth shut, he probably wouldn't have been charged, but they got him dead-to-rights saying stuff they're pretty sure they can prove he was lying about. And this is it "working the way it should".

The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".

Don't ever do it, even if it's an investigation you're sympathetic to. If _your_ lawyer is there taking notes, they know there's less shenanigans they can pull.

kkielhofner2• 3 years ago

The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".

This is shown in a scene from "Wolf of Wall Street"[0]. In this case the main agent gets his partner to come to within earshot of Jordan Belfort and asks Jordan to repeat his bribery offer. Testimony from one FBI agent is good, testimony from two is better.

[0] https://youtu.be/3IKbkjs8xd0?t=46

dccoolgai2• 3 years ago

It's a little worse than that even - in that example, I think the feds are just trying to get him to repeat something _he said_.

The way it works, is they meet with you alone: You say "A, B, C". They take some notes and write down "D, E, F" because it's what they want to hear or what they wish you said. A few weeks later, they present you with a written statement to sign that says "D, E, F". You protest "but I didn't say that, I said A, B, C!" And then they threaten you: either sign the statement or we charge you with lying to a Federal Agent (a felony).

According to my Father in-law (an attorney with decades of experience), it happens way more than anyone would like to admit.

RadixDLT• 3 years ago

what if you get into an accident, should you still give the police details?

rad_gruchalski• 3 years ago

The answer in the title. Never talk to the police.

mindslight11• 3 years ago

That sounds like a good way to end up paying for an accident that you weren't actually at fault for. The fifth amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, and police reports are a large part of how insurance companies assign blame.

If "never talk to the police" sounds like a reasonable hard and fast rule to you, it's probably best that you just follow it. It's a good first brush.

But attorneys aren't magic. It's possible to judge your situation, recall facts, and represent your rights without saying things that further implicate you, or that can be misconstrued. Especially when dealing with relatively low stakes situations like a minor traffic accident, where hiring an attorney is basically equivalent to having lost.

If it's the kind of traffic accident that you're likely at fault for or someone went to the hospital or substances are involved, then you do indeed need to shut the fuck up.

avgcorrection3• 3 years ago

I might assume as much just from the prejudice of watching American cops in the fictional media.

The ones who are portrayed as protagonists/good guys are often obsessed assholes who will do whatever it takes to solve the case, ranging from manipulating witnesses to doing borderline illegal things. Then their bozo superior gets in the way because they don’t see how, actually, in this case it would be totally worth it to do something without proper procedure, and actually being a maverick cop who just follows his gut is perfectly good and okay.

They only remain “the good guys” because they happen to catch the bad guys.

hollywood_court• 3 years ago

I was raised by career long LEOs. My mother and father and all 3 of my stepfathers were LEOs.

They always told me to never speak to the police. Every interaction with a police officer is inviting trouble into your life.

They exist to monetize your mistakes. They have no legal obligation to assist you in any manner.

paulpauper3• 3 years ago

what if you are asked to identify yourself such as for a speeding ticket or a Terry stop. I don't think it's clear cut.

mplanchard13• 3 years ago

This is clear cut. There are situations where you are legally obligated to interact with the police, like providing your identification at a traffic stop. In any other situation, you should avoid interaction with the police.

lost_tourist3• 3 years ago

you have to show your ID, you don't have to talk to the cop. It's not that hard to be respectful with yes, no, not sure, etc without giving away anything. Never consent to a search of your car. Not ever. Don't lie, if you don't want to answer something then simply decline.

boringuser24• 3 years ago

I have a simple script that I have constructed to deal with the police when/if I ever get questioned. I feel it strikes a good balance between the potential ways of approaching this.

While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I cannot speak with you without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.

In my mind, this balances being respectful, dealing with potential follow-ups in the vein of "only a guilty person would say that", shutting down potential conversation, etc.

If anyone has good edits, I'm all ears.

mplanchard13• 3 years ago

As noted in another thread, it is probably worth adding an explicit statement that you’re invoking your right to remain silent.

boringuser24• 3 years ago

In that case, I'd amend it like so.

While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I must invoke my right to be silent without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.

I feel like there's some additional potential verbiage modification that can be made to make it more clear to the officer that you're trying to protect your rights and apologize for any inconvenience, but I can't put my finger on it. I think being cordial and respectful will deal with many potential negative side-effects of this approach.

Granted, I'm trying to amolierate the side-effect of this frustrating an officer you're interacting with or triggering their sense that you're actually guilty, causing yourself a greater headache. It's not about what's right, it's about what's effective.

lurquer• 3 years ago

Happily for the State, no matter how many times you give this obvious advice, people will still blab away and incriminate themselves.

Ha. Even in a thread such as this peopled by highly educated types, you see comment after comment expressing some disbelief with this obvious advice.

This advice precedes the 5th am, incidentally. So long as you live in a system where the State has the burden of proof, it is NEVER beneficial to say ANYTHING to a cop.

But, like I said, many folks don’t understand this. So, lawyers and prisons and judges will always have a job.

I suppose it’s like a senior programmer advising a noob not to create a pointer object using ‘new()’ within a frequently called function… but, folks will do it anyway. Oh well.

qawwads• 3 years ago

How does that translate to internal investigations? Should you talk to HR? If you're in school, should you talk to the principal?

maxgashkov• 3 years ago

Regular reminder that this is strictly true for the US. For other countries YMMV by following this approach.

E.g. it's generally a bad idea to shut up completely once you're in a police station in Japan, as they may hold you up for 23 days w/o pressing charges and allowing you to communicate with the outside world.

joeman1000• 3 years ago

This guy is too much of a showman for me to trust him and take him seriously. It’s all coloured by the years of conniving he’s done as a criminal defence lawyer. He may have a point but I’d rather read about it.

kar5pt2• 3 years ago

So many non-lawyers giving legal advice in this thread...

Don’t Talk to Police (2012) [video]

Related Stories