Why I never talk to police.

[kiryan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/01 ... 5683.shtml
(watch the 48 minute video too)

Let Tiger and Elin's encounter with the local constabulary be a warning to you: Don't talk to the police without your lawyer present. Even if you're innocent. Just don't.

This advice may seem counter-intuitive. But before you convince yourself I'm wrong, it's worth watching this video (below) by James Duane, a professor at the Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach and former criminal defense attorney, who makes precisely this point about your Fifth Amendment rights. (Here's a rebuttal from a police officer who agrees.)

One reason is that the list of what is and what isn't a crime has grown so long that even lawyers can barely figure it out. The American Bar Association has only an estimate of how many crimes exist: Offhand, do you know what is and isn't legal? Another is that, if the police already have a sufficient reason to arrest you, you're not going to be able to talk your way out of it.

Plus, the recollection of police officers can be mistaken; they may say you acknowledged guilt of some sort. Who do you think a judge will believe? The Innocence Project reports that: "In about 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty."

--

And thats why I never talk to police other than the basics. Don't admit anything, don't tell them what you were doing, nothing.

The federal law is 20,000 pages long and refers to tens of thousands of administrative rules. Even the federal committee responsible for it can't count the # of laws conclusively.

Did you know you may be guilty of a federal crime for having in your posession a lobster?

Key points:
1. You can't talk your way out of being arrested.
***herse can not help you at trial. If you say something to police that help portray you in a positive light, it will not come up in court (unless the cop volunteers it).

2. If your client is guilty, and even if he is innocent - he may admit guilt with no benefit in return.

3. Even innocent people confess
***25% of people released under project innocence confessed and were exonerated using DNA evidence
***even if you are innocent, you may get carried away talking to the police and tell a little white lie, now you have credibility problems.

4. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the police the truth, he will always give them some evidence they can use to convict him.
***The point of the 5th amendment
per the supreme court: one of the 5th amendment's basic functions is to PROTECT INNOCENT men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.
***some other court: too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrondoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury.

5. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating, (imagine talking to the police for 2 hours who make extracting information and confessions their business without saying anything that can be used against you (whether you are innocent or not) there is still a grave chance that his answers can be used to cruicy him if the police don't recall his testimony with 100% accuracy. If the officer testifies you said something who do you think the jury is going to believe?

6. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating and his statement is videotaped, his answers can be used to cruicy him if the police don't recall their questions with 100% accuracy (or are willing to lie).

7. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating and his statement is videotaped, his answers can be used to cruicy him if the police have any evidence even mistaken or unreliable evidence that any of his statements are false.
** the doped up hooker who swears she saw you down by the bridge + the police officer say he felt you weren't being truthful = conviction even though your mom swears you were at her house 150 miles away.

---

per the police offer offering a "rebuttal"

** Thank God we are in the United States, interviews in Spain, Italy ect start out physical.
** I can follow anyone and eventually find something justifiable illegal to pull them over.
** People want to tell their story. People are in capable of not talking you just have to wait. People want you to know how smart they are.
** Defense attorney's job is to get to their client before the police officer and make sure they don't talk to police.
** Would you get into a ring with a professional boxer. Police officers are professional interrogaters. The playing field is not level.
** this is how the real world works: jury looks at a defendent, thats strike #1, uniformed police officer / detective in a suit, strike #2. It doesn't take much else because its a jury of your peers.
** we are allowed to lie in interviews

[Corth]

I'm with you on that. People think they can talk themselves out of something and usually they just end up talking themselves into it. I make it a habit of not saying anything substantial to a police officer. I will provide a kind greeting and identification documents and that is about it.

[Dalar]

What if they ask you how fast you were driving? Most of the cops I've encountered through speeding usually ask me and I give them an honest answer, and supposedly they write me down as lower.

[Sarvis]

What if they ask you how fast you were driving? Most of the cops I've encountered through speeding usually ask me and I give them an honest answer, and supposedly they write me down as lower.

They almost always lower the speed you were actually driving at for some reason. It's never seemed to matter what I said. I suppose they might not if you acted like a dick...

[kiryan]

Having fought a couple speeding tickets... I once argued that since the officer wrote down 46 mpg in a 40, but noted that I was actually going 55 that he wasn't a credible witness (those are not the exact numbers, it happened 10 years ago). I lost that argument and I still don't understand why.

They specifically address speeding tickets in that video. If you tell the officer I was going 41 mph in a 40, you've just admitted guilt and have lost that case if it goes to trial. If you were doing 22 mph over the speed limit (I believe the threshold for felony speeding is 20 or 25 mph over) you might save yourself a lot of money by being nice and getting the write down to 20 or 19... Its something I would consider in a speeding ticket situation. Of course if you hire a lawyer, he'll probably get it reduced anyways if you keep your mouth shut and don't admit guilt.

[amena wolfsnarl]

What if they ask you how fast you were driving? Most of the cops I've encountered through speeding usually ask me and I give them an honest answer, and supposedly they write me down as lower.

The reason for this as i understand it is physics, and calibration of the radar guns. A vehicle traveling one way with a radar gun cannot accurately get a reading from a vehicle traveling the other, so they automatically lower the speed in your favor. As well the radar guns have to be callibrated once every 30 days....sometimes this doesnt happen, so instead of people demanding to see the callibration records again they drop the speed a certain percentage (10 i think) to compensate for this.

[Sarvis]

What if they ask you how fast you were driving? Most of the cops I've encountered through speeding usually ask me and I give them an honest answer, and supposedly they write me down as lower.

The reason for this as i understand it is physics, and calibration of the radar guns. A vehicle traveling one way with a radar gun cannot accurately get a reading from a vehicle traveling the other, so they automatically lower the speed in your favor. As well the radar guns have to be callibrated once every 30 days....sometimes this doesnt happen, so instead of people demanding to see the callibration records again they drop the speed a certain percentage (10 i think) to compensate for this.

As far as I know they don't radar cars while moving at all, actually. I've heard they recently developed radar guns that have the capacity to accurately measure speed while both cars are moving, but not sure how widespread they are yet.

[amena wolfsnarl]

well ive gotten nailed before by a cop traveling the opposite direction but again im in canada it might be different in your land, and yeah i could see them developing better radar without much of an issue, I got this from a cop friend of mine, i was curious about them always dropping the speed on tickets and those were the reasons he gave me.

[Ragorn]

Having fought a couple speeding tickets... I once argued that since the officer wrote down 46 mpg in a 40, but noted that I was actually going 55 that he wasn't a credible witness (those are not the exact numbers, it happened 10 years ago). I lost that argument and I still don't understand why.

Because it is assumed that police officers are credit witnesses. You cannot attack a cop's credibility unless he basically has an IA investigation under way. The judge probably thought you were retarded :)

[Sarvis]

Having fought a couple speeding tickets... I once argued that since the officer wrote down 46 mpg in a 40, but noted that I was actually going 55 that he wasn't a credible witness (those are not the exact numbers, it happened 10 years ago). I lost that argument and I still don't understand why.

Because it is assumed that police officers are credit witnesses. You cannot attack a cop's credibility unless he basically has an IA investigation under way. The judge probably thought you were retarded :)

More to the point, the cop did you a favor and you tried to make him look bad for doing so WHILE admitting that you had really been going faster. Making yourself not only look retarded, but like an ungrateful asshole.

[Corth]

When I was in college I pulled off I80 into a rest area to take a nap. A police cruiser followed me off the highway. I had no idea he was even behind me. He came up to my window and asked me how fast I was driving. I decided to be honest, as Dartan mentioned, assuming he had paced me and knew the speed I was going. I told him 70 MPH, which was the truth. He turned around and wrote me a ticket for 70MPH. In retrospect, I think that if I told him "I don't know" I wouldn't have gotten a ticket.

[Sarvis]

When I was in college I pulled off I80 into a rest area to take a nap. A police cruiser followed me off the highway. I had no idea he was even behind me. He came up to my window and asked me how fast I was driving. I decided to be honest, as Dartan mentioned, assuming he had paced me and knew the speed I was going. I told him 70 MPH, which was the truth. He turned around and wrote me a ticket for 70MPH. In retrospect, I think that if I told him "I don't know" I wouldn't have gotten a ticket.

I'm frequently not paying attention to my speed, so "I don't know" is often the honest answer. I haven't gotten pulled over much since leaving high school though. The funny bit is I never got a speeding ticket in my sporty looking Grand Am, I got tons of tickets in my mom's old station wagon.

The worst one though was a cop who planned it so that when I pulled over I was parked directly in front of the speed limit sign. He walks up to the window and asks "do you know what the speed limit is here?"

[Corth]

And the appropriate reply would be "I don't know." :)

Seriously though, reminds me of the old story about the drunk guy who gets pulled over on the higheway. The officer asks him if he knows how fast he was going. The guy says... 'ummm yer, bout 55 occifer'. The officer looks at him and says, "EIGHT. You were going EIGHT MILES PER HOUR".

[Kifle]

As I understand it, the radar guns have to be calibrated every morning rather than once every 30 days. I challenged a speeding ticket and won because of this back when I was 19. As far as the physics is involved, you are right, Amena. It is impossible to get an accurate reading with a radar gun due to the difference in frames of movement reference (it being impossible to have the same uniform movement). I'm not sure exactly if this is why they will write the ticket under, but I have never experienced this. When I would get pulled over, I'd either get the ticket for what the officer clocked me at, or I would get a warning. I would be very interested in the precise range of innacuracy that these radar guns actually have... I say we outsource the math to the resident asian. Get to it, Dartan.

[Ashiwi]

Actually, last I heard the radar guns have gotten quite a bit more accurate, although I don't think they're foolproof, by any means. And yes, they can use them while moving. From what I understand the standard radar is best used while on the same road as the moving vehicles, because you don't have to worry about the cosine effect from scanning at an angle. I think most radar units nowadays are also synced with the police vehicle's speedometer, for a much more accurate computation of the speed difference between vehicles.

The biggest problem with radar is that you can't be 100% positive which car it picked up, if it was used on a busy highway. The officer kind of has to take a guess at which car was the one tagged.

[kiryan]

Thats the problem Ragorn, the cop is considered credit worthy and you're considered guilty. The officer is citing you for something other than what actually happened. Really the problem is that a properly calibrated radar gun is considered essentially an independent "witness", so even if you discredit the cop, you still have the radar gun to deal with.

Sarvis, he may have been trying to do me a favor, but we're talking about credibility. If your boss asked how fast your coworker was driving and you said he was doing 40 instead of 46 and he had evidence of 46... Shouldn't that call into question your credibility? Its something less than the truth.

[Sarvis]

Thats the problem Ragorn, the cop is considered credit worthy and you're considered guilty. The officer is citing you for something other than what actually happened. Really the problem is that a properly calibrated radar gun is considered essentially an independent "witness", so even if you discredit the cop, you still have the radar gun to deal with.

Sarvis, he may have been trying to do me a favor, but we're talking about credibility. If your boss asked how fast your coworker was driving and you said he was doing 40 instead of 46 and he had evidence of 46... Shouldn't that call into question your credibility? Its something less than the truth.

You have to have been going 45 before you could have made it to 55. He did not lie, at some point you WERE going the speed he gave you a ticket for.

[Ragorn]

Thats the problem Ragorn, the cop is considered credit worthy and you're considered guilty. The officer is citing you for something other than what actually happened. Really the problem is that a properly calibrated radar gun is considered essentially an independent "witness", so even if you discredit the cop, you still have the radar gun to deal with.

Yes, the fundamental point here is that cops are always considered credible witnesses. This is why so many people dislike cops... it's trivially easy for a police officer to cite you for something you weren't doing, and can't prove you weren't doing.

[kiryan]

But he didn't tell the whole truth, which was the point of my argument to the judge.

Traffic court is a kangaroo court, its about revenue and giving cops an excuse to pull people over.

[Lalsed]

This is an interesting and informative vide. Recap is

"Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

enjoy

[Ragorn]

But he didn't tell the whole truth, which was the point of my argument to the judge.

Traffic court is a kangaroo court, its about revenue and giving cops an excuse to pull people over.

Yes. You are correct.

Don't give cops a reason to talk to you.

[kiryan]

I didn't expect to actually win it, but I threw it out there and got no traction whatsoever which I thought was brash of the judge. Course hes probably heard it 100x before. I go to court over traffic tickets just to make sure I waste as much court time as possible. I usually get at least 2 reschedules in before I actually appear and accept my fate, once I got it out to 9 months. Yes, I am quite proud of myself.

Also it delays the increases to my insurance premiums.

[Sarvis]

Course hes probably heard it 100x before.

I highly doubt 100 people are that retarded.

I go to court over traffic tickets just to make sure I waste as much court time as possible. I usually get at least 2 reschedules in before I actually appear and accept my fate, once I got it out to 9 months. Yes, I am quite proud of myself.

Also it delays the increases to my insurance premiums.

You realize your taxes pay for the judge's time, right? Keep wondering why taxes are getting raised as you personally cost the government more and more money, then blame the poor.

[Ragorn]

I didn't expect to actually win it, but I threw it out there and got no traction whatsoever which I thought was brash of the judge. Course hes probably heard it 100x before. I go to court over traffic tickets just to make sure I waste as much court time as possible. I usually get at least 2 reschedules in before I actually appear and accept my fate, once I got it out to 9 months. Yes, I am quite proud of myself.

Proud to waste the taxpayers' money. A stunning example of fiscal conservatism!

[kiryan]

Now your worried about tax payer money?

[Sarvis]

There is a vast difference between using taxpayer money to benefit society and wasting it on some misguided form of personal vengeance.

[Corth]

I love the idea of wasting the government's time and money when they go overboard with their revenue collection schemes. If everyone did what Kiryan does it would be unprofitable to have red light cameras, speed traps, and all that other nonsense. Certainly there is a type of conduct that cannot be tolerated, and I am all for traffic enforcement. More often than not however the traffic laws are geared simply towards making revenue. Setting speed limits unreasonably low etc.

[Sarvis]

I love the idea of wasting my own time and money when they go overboard with their revenue collection schemes.

Fixed that for you.

You Conservatives really aren't capable of thinking things through more than one level, are you? Seeing past "money comes out of my pocket" is clearly difficult. Seeing that "wasting government time and money" and reversing that back to "money comes out of my pocket" shouldn't be a difficult connection to make.

They aren't going to lower fines if you make it more expensive for them to collect the fine. They'll just increase the fine.

[kiryan]

I liken it to civil disobedience, a time honored liberal tactic.

[Sarvis]

Except that actual civil disobedience may actually accomplish something more than increased fines and a greater loss of your own money.

But really, it's the stupidity of this that gets me. Whine all day about the government wasting money, then cause them to waste money. Right. Oh, I forgot the step where you blame liberals and poor people.

[kiryan]

Be that as it may, I'm going to make it as difficult as legally possible when they get involved in my life. Whether I was breakign the law or not.

Oh and surely you must be kidding, civil disobedience doesn't cost the government any money?

[Sarvis]

Be that as it may, I'm going to make it as difficult as legally possible when they get involved in my life. Whether I was breakign the law or not.

Of course you are. I would never expect anything other than hypocrisy and short-sightedness from you. Keep blaming people who actually need help for your tax burden though!

Oh and surely you must be kidding, civil disobedience doesn't cost the government any money?

Did I say that? I said it may ACCOMPLISH something, whereas your method JUST gets increased fines.

[Ragorn]

I liken it to civil disobedience, a time honored liberal tactic.

Except you'll be the first one to complain when the government increases the court fees associated with traffic tickets because of all the court time wasted by people like you.

[kiryan]

but of course!

[Llaaldara]

Good article and vid Kiryan. =^)


When I first started driving a friend of my mom's, who was a police officer, told me to say the following in response to when an officer asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?"

"I'm not sure exactly how fast I was going, sir (or Ma'am, or officer), I was just trying to keep up with everyone else."


I was told this really good excuse for speeding before, and this one came from a cop as well. You need a prop tho, a garden hose. Have it in the passenger seat next to you. When the cop pulls you over and eventually asks why you are speeding/going so fast/in such a hurry, say:

"My waterbed just broke! I have to get home! Please sir!" while grabbing those hose to emphasize your words. Act panic'y.

[kiryan]

This guy should've watched the video. He's probably guilty, but he shouldn't have answered any questions at all. Now they are going to make fun of his "camping" trip in the middle of the night in freezing weather. I love the part about the kids, we gotta get to the kids before daddy can contaminate their testimony. Guarantee if something like this happens, I'll just hire a lawyer and leave the city immediately. THe dad is always the first suspect.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/susan-powell- ... id=9359781

"Josh's reasons for not wanting to approach the police department or come and work with us in a little more forthcoming manner have kind of generated some controversy among the officers," Black said. '"And it's something that's been questioned by the community members who have been following the case."
...
During the interview Tuesday with his lawyer present, Powell responded to basic questions about the clothes his wife was wearing and what her jewelry looked like, Black said, but even after being reminded that this was in the best interest of his wife, Joshua Powell refued to answer "hard, direct questions."
...
"Even if he isn't compelled to be very involved in the search for finding his mother well, then they're pressuring him, 'Where's mommy?'" Welner said, adding that Powell's lack of cooperation in the face of his children's questioning would be "striking."
...
The children, he said, could also be credible witnesses, but said police will need to work quickly before they have been "contaminated" by their father or anyone else.
...
Others also are confused by Powell's actions, including his decision to hire a lawyer.

Powell did not show up for a scheduled second interview Monday, police said.

"It kind of raises a red flag, but I know he has to protect himself," neighbor Wendy Trujillo told "Good Morning America." "We're just really worried about Susan. And of course, everyone's thinking the worst and just hoping by the faith of God that she does come back."
...
Cox said it's not unusual for his son-in-law to get a late start.

"It was believable," Cox said of Powell's story. "It was unusual, but believable to me."

But Helliwell said she talked to Susan Powell the day she went missing and she wasn't sick. Police told ABC News they couldn't verify Joshua Powell's camping trip because snow had covered the spot where he said they went.
...
"He did give us a statement, and we're following up on all aspects of that statement," said Capt. Tom McLachlan, who called her disappearance "suspicious."

[kiryan]

Turns out a father put in jail for raping his daughter and drowning her in a stream was actually innocent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/ ... nContent.1

Prosecutors on Thursday charged (charged and held in prison for 8 months) an imprisoned sex offender with raping and murdering a 3-year-old girl whose father was initially blamed for her death.

Kevin Fox was charged after he implicated himself under intense questioning. But he later said he only did so in exchange for leniency and after losing hope during an overnight interrogation that lasted more than 14 hours.

Fox spent eight months in jail in the killing before DNA evidence gathered from the girl and from duct tape placed over her mouth showed he was not her killer. Glasgow, whose predecessor charged Fox, cleared the father after taking office.

[teflor the ranger]

I liken it to civil disobedience, a time honored liberal tactic.

Except you'll be the first one to complain when the government increases the court fees associated with traffic tickets because of all the court time wasted by people like you.

That is because neither should be happening.

[teflor the ranger]

Except that actual civil disobedience may actually accomplish something more than increased fines and a greater loss of your own money.

But really, it's the stupidity of this that gets me. Whine all day about the government wasting money, then cause them to waste money. Right. Oh, I forgot the step where you blame liberals and poor people.

Kiryan is not the one causing them to waste money. The government is the one with the monopoly of violence. It's their system and they shouldn't be doing either.

A government by the people, for the people, and making money off the people who fight back by making them spend the money they made. lol.