Don't Talk to Cops

[Original Wally]

** It happens once in a blue moon **

"I" don't want to be THAT example

 

[Original Wally]

**We can play "what if" all day. What if you get robbed and call the cops and then the cops see that you have an eagle feather in your car and you end up in trouble? Are you never going to call the cops and report a crime just in case they try to pin something on you? That's ridiculous.

What if some guy witnesses your wife get run over by a car but he refuses to cooperate because he has a tiny lobster in his car and doesn't want to talk to the police? I bet you aren't so happy with him. **


Again, Officer utrech, I am NOT saying "don't talk", I am saying "Don't talk without counsel present". BIG BIG BIG difference. Why do cops hate to have a citizen "lawyer up"

 

[Lazarus]

That's shocking that the cops would try to get people to confess? I think that what you, as a taxpayer, are paying the cops to do isn't it?

I thought we paid the courts to determine guilt or innocence. We have a legal system with checks and balances. Jury of our peers. ect. If Police are so good at reading minds and determining who is guilty I guess we are wasting a lot of money on the legal system. It is not up to the police to decide what justice is. Never has been.

 

[braumeister]

I don't think you can really tell what the venue is. It appears to me to be a seminar.

I think you're probably right.
Just for grins, I went back and listened to the beginning again.
The first words out of the lawyer's mouth are:

I was invited to give you a taste of a typical law school classroom experience here today,

So I think that makes it clear that the audience is not a group of law students.

 

[Koolau]

I don't understand any of these arguments that people are making unless they have something to hide.

So let's just do away with the bill of rights That would really make the police job easier. If you have nothing to hide why would you deny the police the "right" to enter your home at will and search through your belongings? You did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, so why would you care??

I saw a show once (yeah, too much L & O) where the police asked to search a suspect's house without a warrant. They guy said. "Tell ya what, officer. You let me search your house and I'll let you search mine. Fair enough??" IIRC, the officer ended up trying to get a warrant but was denied. The old "he won't let me search his house so he must be hiding something" approach didn't fly with the judge for some reason. Thank God and the constitution for that.

I think those who don't see the value of council during questioning are very rational, making excellent arguments. Unfortunately, not everything about "the law" is rational. Not everyone applies the law "rationally". Most of the time, law enforcement gets it right. Most LEOs are decent and competent. But they have a job to do. If they can get a suspect to give up a right, it does, indeed make their job easier. But where does it say we should give up our rights just because it makes someone else's job easier?

I really could turn this whole "if you have nothing to hide" argument around and say "If the police really don't wish to trample people's rights for their own convenience, why would they object to someone obtaining council before being questioned??"

Naturally, YMMV.

 

[utrecht]

Just about everything I've said has been twisted so I'm done arguing my points. I'll end with this. Ive been dealing with these same attitudes for 23 years. Nobody likes the cop until they need them, then it's a whole different story.
"What took you so long?"
"Why cant you catch the guy?"
"Why cant you arrest him? I know he did it"
"Please do everything you can to make sure he doesnt do it again"

 

[Lazarus]

No one said they didn't like the Police. Don't twist our words.

 

[Original Wally]

Agree with Laz - I have said OVER and OVER - I just want legal representation. AND for ME a significant part of that is any potential tort (civil matter), where the "burden of proof" is significantly less. If a Peace Office can convince me that it is IMPERATIVE to talk **RIGHT THIS MINUTE** as opposed to, say, an hour from now - THEN we can have a VERY LIMITED chat. But s/he has to convince me of the time sensitive nature of what s/he needs. FOR EXAMPLE - If i witnessed a murder a moment ago and saw what I believe to be the murderer walk down that road wearing such and such clothes, I WOULD provide THAT information. However, any subsequent "interview" about what exactly I saw, when, where, all the additional poop... THAT **CAN AND WILL** wait until I have counsel present. That is **MY** balance between the needs of a safe and secure society and protecting myself.

 

[youbet]

If a Peace Office can convince me that it is IMPERATIVE to talk **RIGHT THIS MINUTE** as opposed to, say, an hour from now - THEN we can have a VERY LIMITED chat.

That seems like a much better position to take than your earlier statement.......

NEVER talk to a police officer WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AN ATTORNEY.

Sometimes a statement which emphasizes never allowing even small exceptions goes a bit too far. Never say never and all that........

 

[Rustward]

Well if you look him up on wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)

you get this:
"James Duane is a Regent University School of Law professor, former criminal defense attorney, and Fifth Amendment expert.[1] He received some notoriety for his "Don't Talk To Police" video of a lecture he gave to a group of law students, which instructs citizens to never talk to police under any circumstances."

... and this is what the Regent University School of Law has to say about him:
Regent Law Faculty Profile: James Duane

"James Duane is a Professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, where he received the Faculty Excellence Award in the fall of 2002. He has taught as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, ... "

You decide if this is a seminar making "1000s of dollars" or something else.

I do, however, agree with youbet's caution (above) about using absolutes.

Sometimes I am amazed when people just know they are right about something.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Love this thread.

Well if you look him up on wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)

you get this:
"James Duane is a Regent University School of Law professor, former criminal defense attorney, and Fifth Amendment expert.[1] He received some notoriety for his "Don't Talk To Police" video of a lecture he gave to a group of law students, which instructs citizens to never talk to police under any circumstances."

The law school says the lecture was "given as part of Regent Law School’s spring preview weekend," an organized program for prospective law students.
Regent Law Faculty Blog: Professor James Duane That's probably why he doesn't seem to be speaking to a group of law students.

... and this is what the Regent University School of Law has to say about him:
Regent Law Faculty Profile: James Duane

Well, he probably wrote the material himself for that site. But he is obviously very impressive and well-credentialed. He's also very highly rated by his students: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=244958

You decide if this is a seminar making "1000s of dollars" or something else.

Sometimes I am amazed when people just know they are right about something.

I bet Professor Duane wishes he got $1 a hit for that Youtube video.

 

[Nodak]

I would be willing to talk to the police on the street but once it becomes more formal than that I would insist on a lawyer being present.

 

[utrecht]

Well if you look him up on wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)

you get this:
"James Duane is a Regent University School of Law professor, former criminal defense attorney, and Fifth Amendment expert.[1] He received some notoriety for his "Don't Talk To Police" video of a lecture he gave to a group of law students, which instructs citizens to never talk to police under any circumstances."

... and this is what the Regent University School of Law has to say about him:
Regent Law Faculty Profile: James Duane

"James Duane is a Professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, where he received the Faculty Excellence Award in the fall of 2002. He has taught as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, ... "

You decide if this is a seminar making "1000s of dollars" or something else.

I do, however, agree with youbet's caution (above) about using absolutes.

Sometimes I am amazed when people just know they are right about something.

The part that I bolded is the only thing that I think needs amended. "Never talk to police under any circumstances" is just utterly ridiculous. If you feel like you are being accused or suspected of something, by all means get an attorney if you want to.

Are you really not going to talk to the police if you get robbed? What if you are in a car wreck? Will you talk to the police then? What if you are a witness to a crime? Come on people. Get real.

 

[FUEGO]

I always have my personal attorney present when I talk to the police. I guess finishing law school and passing the bar WAS good for something after all...

 

[haha]

I always have my personal attorney present when I talk to the police. I guess finishing law school and passing the bar WAS good for something after all...

And how many times has this occurred?

Ha

 

[Original Wally]

It really is a clarification not a restatement. That is one problem with forums. It can be SO difficult to express a complex thought so that hundreds of readers all get the same message. Especially readers who do not know the writer's personality and so forth. It is a constant tension betwen brevity (which is desired and a vitrue in the forums) and completeness. So, as the thread continues, the position becomes fleshed out a bit more and more. In a LIVE conversation, there is so much more opportunity to express nuance, have a quick back and forth to clarify and so on. The lack of that is just one of the difficulties in a forum... nor can the write convey facial expression, "tone" and other things. It is just such an imperfect medium.

Your commends about "never" remind me of a business law class wherein the instructor had some "no-no's" - NEVER enter into a general partnership, NEVER adopt your wife's kids and (to consolidate several others into one) NEVER enter into a transaction where YOU are approached by the other party (phone solicitation, door to door, and NOW e-mail solicitations and so on)

He acknowledged, and perhaps that is what **I** mean too, "Never" is intended to convey that the default is absolutely NO, and to overcome it requires getting over a sifnificant hurdle. So significant that for all intents and purposes the answer really is NO. Exceptions should be extremely rare and only in unusual situations. See, that is that tension between brevity and completeness. "never" is just so much more convenient. And, always, one can choose to ignore a never and talk, but it is impossible to "un-talk". So the default is never talk to police without counsel. <<< Short version.

 

[Original Wally]

Are you really not going to talk to the police if you get robbed? What if you are in a car wreck? Will you talk to the police then? What if you are a witness to a crime? Come on people. Get real.

Officer U, it was within the CONTEXT of YOU being approached BY THE PEACE OFFICER. Your examples are silly and you know it.

 

[youbet]

And, always, one can choose to ignore a never

Your position is clear now.

 

[MichaelB]

Your position is clear now.

I'm not sure. We may need another restatement or a clarification. Besides, what's the difference between ".." and *..*.

 

[utrecht]

The words "never" and "under any circumstances" had nothing to do with forums or brevity. They came directly from the law professor's lecture. They are his words not mine.

At no time did the professor say anything about his lecture being in the context of a person being approached by a cop. Basically they are saying to keep your mouth shut at all times just in case you accidentally say something that implicates yourself. They don't want you to even open your mouth during a traffic stop.

Their examples are much more ridiculous than the ones I gave. A small lobster? Really?

By the way, if you dont want to talk to the cops, you don't need a lawyer. Just say I would rather not speak to you, Mr. Police Officer. No need to pay an attorney unless you get charged with a crime. If I call you in for an interview, there is nothing the lawyer can do for you except advise you not to talk. If you have already decided that's in your best interest, why pay a lawyer?

Also, I don't get mad or offended at all when someone lawyers up to me. It happened twice last week and I walked out of the room thinking "oh well, maybe next time". When someone talks to me, sometimes it makes my job easier and sometimes it makes it harder depending on what they say. Sometimes I spend 2 hours with them and they just waste my time and I wish they would've lawyered up. I dont get paid on commission. I don't get promoted based on how many cases I clear. I don't get mad or lose sleep if I do my best and cant solve a crime. No cops that I know think that way. We just want to do the best job we can with the tools that are given to us. I do have a few cases that I couldn't solve over the years that I still think about occasionally in the same way that you might if you watched a movie and missed the ending, but I'm not mad at anyone for not talking to me. That's their right.

 

[eytonxav]

I still believe if you have nothing to hide, there is no harm in talking to a police officer and answering some of his basic questions. However, I would agree that if the questions have any hint of trying to entrap oneself for something that is a potentially a serious crime, best to refraim from answering without advice or representation from an attorney. That said, I suspect most people will never have contact with the police for anything more serious than a traffic violation or accident and to that regard, you obviously know whether you have something to hide or not. Perhaps, DWIs are the most common gray area for whether to lawyer up or not.

 

[Lazarus]

If I call you in for an interview, there is nothing the lawyer can do for you except advise you not to talk. If you have already decided that's in your best interest, why pay a lawyer?

I have a question about this. What compels a person to come in for an interview?

 

[Letj]

The words "never" and "under any circumstances" had nothing to do with forums or brevity. They came directly from the law professor's lecture. They are his words not mine.

At no time did the professor say anything about his lecture being in the context of a person being approached by a cop. Basically they are saying to keep your mouth shut at all times just in case you accidentally say something that implicates yourself. They don't want you to even open your mouth during a traffic stop.

Their examples are much more ridiculous than the ones I gave. A small lobster? Really?

By the way, if you dont want to talk to the cops, you don't need a lawyer. Just say I would rather not speak to you, Mr. Police Officer. No need to pay an attorney unless you get charged with a crime. If I call you in for an interview, there is nothing the lawyer can do for you except advise you not to talk. If you have already decided that's in your best interest, why pay a lawyer?

Also, I don't get mad or offended at all when someone lawyers up to me. It happened twice last week and I walked out of the room thinking "oh well, maybe next time". When someone talks to me, sometimes it makes my job easier and sometimes it makes it harder depending on what they say. Sometimes I spend 2 hours with them and they just waste my time and I wish they would've lawyered up. I dont get paid on commission. I don't get promoted based on how many cases I clear. I don't get mad or lose sleep if I do my best and cant solve a crime. No cops that I know think that way. We just want to do the best job we can with the tools that are given to us. I do have a few cases that I couldn't solve over the years that I still think about occasionally in the same way that you might if you watched a movie and missed the ending, but I'm not mad at anyone for not talking to me. That's their right.

Is advising you not the talk the only thing a lawyer can do? How about preventing charges in the first place by explaining or clarifying misunderstandings or circumstances, presenting your side of the story, etc. This may allow the DA to reconsider whether charges are warranted.

 

[photoguy]

Well, he probably wrote the material himself for that site. But he is obviously very impressive and well-credentialed. He's also very highly rated by his students: James Duane - Regent University - RateMyProfessors.com

I've gone to a lot of talks and I've never seen anyone who could speak so fast yet still be very clear, understandable and interesting.

 

[Rustward]

The part that I bolded is the only thing that I think needs amended. "Never talk to police under any circumstances" is just utterly ridiculous. If you feel like you are being accused or suspected of something, by all means get an attorney if you want to.

Are you really not going to talk to the police if you get robbed? What if you are in a car wreck? Will you talk to the police then? What if you are a witness to a crime? Come on people. Get real.

We might have a little common ground. Quoting myself:

I do, however, agree with youbet's caution (above) about using absolutes.

... and that with which I was in agreement:

Sometimes a statement which emphasizes never allowing even small exceptions goes a bit too far. Never say never and all that........