Don't Talk to Cops

[Lsbcal]

...(snip)...
This lawyer and cop are both making a lot of money going around giving seminars. They wouldn't be able to do that unless their subject matter was controversial. They are scum of the earth in my opinion. They are making money by taking advantage of future victims

Basically it boils down to this. If you are guilty you should keep your mouth shut but if you keep your mouth shut the cops know there's a good chance you are guilty and they are going to spend a lot more time on you.

I appreciate your inputs on this. Maybe I've been reading too many Sue Grafton novels but I tend to be trusting of cops. They have a tough job and that can make them suspicious during encounters, but they are first in line to protect us civilians and our homes.

 

[utrecht]

A few years ago a friend of mine picked up an eagle feather from the ground while he was hiking. A couple of days later he had federal agents at his door asking why he was in possession of an eagle feather. They were seriously talking about prosecuting him.

Talking about prosecuting him and doing it are two different things. First of all, Federal Agents cant prosecute anybody. They can present a case to an Assistant US attorney and they make the decision. Do you really think they are going to waste a pile of money for that? Federal prosecutors only take big cases that are worth their time. Ive personally seen them turn down strong cases because they didn't think they were serious enough. They probably said something to your friend to scare him and obviously it worked.

 

[utrecht]

Just so nobody thinks I'm protecting cops because I am one, I spent several years in the Public Corruption squad investigating cops, firemen, City Councilmen and other City employees that were accused of crimes.

There has been a lot of publicity lately surrounding people getting exonerated of crimes they had served time for. Almost every one of those cases was based on eyewitness testimony that turned out to be wrong, not based on overzealous cops that were trying to railroad someone. Police procedures have changed drastically recently because of a lot of those cases. No cop that I know wants an innocent person going to jail. I've dropped cases myself that where I thought i had the right guy, but wasn't sure enough and didn't want to take any chances.

As I said before it boils down to the fact that it's not smart to talk to the cops if you are guilty because no matter how smart you think you are, you are going to say something you will wish you hadn't but why are we training people how to be better criminals? If you are innocent, chances are very slim that you are going to talk you way into a conviction.

 

[Original Wally]

***If you are guilty you should keep your mouth shut but if you keep your mouth shut the cops know there's a good chance you are guilty and they are going to spend a lot more time on you***


WOW.

That reminds me of the old saw... a cop sez "if you didn't do anything wrong, then why am I standing here talking to you?"

Oficer utrecht, First - thank you for your service. I mean that. Those on the front line are SO important to society. Second - I remain even more convinced than ever - with the following clarification... NEVER talk to a police officer WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AN ATTORNEY.

Your example about an alibi minimizing the time spend with an individual cuts both ways... Since I am innocent, there is no real harm in delaying an "interview" until I can have an attorney present, is there?

Also, would you kindly confirm that exculpatory comments made to a peace officer are inadmissible in court?

 

[utrecht]

The video says never talk to a cop under any circumstances. I never heard him say to wait for an attorney and then talk to the cops. Actually I believe the guy is talking to a room full of lawyers and is telling them to never let their clients talk to the cops under any circumstances. Like I said, he is stretching the truth and using scare tactics to justify the need for him to give seminars and make 1000s of dollars.

I'm not a lawyer and to be honest, I'm not sure whether or not exculpatory comments made to a cop are inadmissible in court. It makes no sense though. I've never had it come up in a case I worked. If someone made exculpatory comments to me which means his comments could be used to clear him of the crime (such as an alibi) I would follow up on the comments. If they really were exculpatory then I most likely cleared him and moved on. I'm looking for the truth, not to find someone and arrest him and say "close enough". I'd like to hear a real life example of exculpatory comments that were true and really indicated the suspects innocence being inadmissible in court to believe this was the case.

The guy talks about people confessing to crimes they didn't commit. Both examples he gives are from people who are mentally challenged. Whatever cops took those confessions and didn't verify specific statements given during those confessions to see whether or not they were real confessions, need to be locked up themselves. Those same crooked and / or incompetent cops most likely would've found a way to bad rap those guys even without the confessions. Saying don't talk to the cops under any circumstances because you heard about a horrific situation like that is like saying don't go to the doctor when you're having chest pains because you saw a guy on Dateline who went to the doctor to have his appendix removed and they took his kidney out instead.

 

[Rustward]

Like I said, he is stretching the truth and using scare tactics to justify the need for him to give seminars and make 1000s of dollars.

This is the third time you mentioned "seminar". The venue appeared to be a law school classroom lecture, not a for-profit seminar. The presenter in part I was the law professor. The presenter in part II was the cop.

What gives you the impression that this was a for-profit seminar making "1000s of dollars"?

I believe you are making this into something that it is not.

 

[utrecht]

I don't think you can really tell what the venue is. It appears to me to be a seminar. Maybe its not. It does appear to be well rehearsed and that they have done this lecture or seminar many times before. Unless the cop is getting some sort of school credit, hes getting paid.

Either way, all they are doing is teaching lawyers how to get their guilty clients off. I sure hope that whoever is fine with that never is the victim of a serious crime and has to watch the guilty person walk. I believe our forefathers wanted to make sure people were given a fair trial and weren't unfairly prosecuted. I don't think they wanted lawyers to feel pride and laugh about figuring out ways to keep criminals on the streets.

 

[frayne]

My take is, if you haven't done anything wrong, there should be no problem talking to the police. I have had a number of friends in law enforcement and they are good people doing a difficult job. The videos are probably good information if you are a criminal, otherwise feel free to line your lawyers pockets. I also have an uncle and cousin who are attorneys who are good people.

 

[Koolau]

utrecht, There are at least 2 tenants of criminal "justice" which DEMAND rigorous defense (even of the "guilty"). 1) If a prosecutor can overcome a rigorous defense, there is very little doubt of someone's guilt. 2) Our system is based on the concept that it's better for a few guilty folks to go free (primarily due to a rigorous defense) than for ONE person to be falsely convicted. I don't blame you for not liking it when a defense attorney "brags" about getting some low-life off. Still a piece of me also cheers with him because the "little guy" won. Imagine being charged with a crime. The state has virtually infinite money, infinite investigative powers and the ability to "bribe" witnesses. You as the defendant have very little of that (certainly, you can't bribe witness as prosecutors can.)

utrecht, I too honor your profession and think you have a tough j*b to do. BUT, if I'm ever accused of a crime (whether I'm guilty or not) I'm going to bloody well hire the best defense attorney I can afford.

Your example that they don't actually arrest people for those little technical violations (e.g., the weird lobster) is totally untrue. They do it for two reasons (at least). First, if you p!$$ off the wrong person, they can "get" you for it legally. But, primarily, they do it to "trade up". They THINK you've done something actually "bad", so they charge you with taking a lobster you should not have. The problem is - the lobster crime has real teeth. Even when they figure out that you are innocent of the "real crime" they thought you committed, you could still be stuck (by circumstances) defending one of the ridiculous "lobster" charges. Make no mistake: all of these penny-anti-ridiculous-to-the-point-of-laughter crimes that you say don't get charged against "good" people, either HAVE BEEN or WILL BE. See my tag line. That's where it comes from originally - the kind of crap charges (often hidden in reams of rule-making) that the defense attorney was talking about. You can no longer walk down the street or drive your car without breaking a law (did you hear the LEO describe how he "gets" people he suspects of a real crime?). 99% of the time you're not charged. BUT, you could be if you've p!$$ed off the right people or they WANT something from you (like to testify against your best friend or neighbor or to violate privileged conversations.) Example - You're a doctor and a LEO wants info about one of your patient's medical conditions (could prove he is guilty of something). You tell him "no way". He sees that there is a needle sticking out of your sharps container. He says "tell me what I want to know or I arrest you for an E felony" (or whatever violation of the sharps rule is). Please don't tell me such things don't happen. Maybe not often - but they do happen.

End of rant 'cause YMMV.

 

[Lazarus]

I was once questioned by police. They did not care if I did it or not. They said anything they could to get me to confess to something I did not do to close their case.

I will not talk to police again. They are not on your side. They have a job they want to get over with and go home. I heard lies trying to get me to confess my guilt for something I did not do. I would not say anything without a lawyer present if I were you.

This has been over 30 years ago and I will never forget it. Plus be careful who you date!

 

[utrecht]

You meet a friend at Starbucks for coffee and a muffin. You are there for 45 mins and then you both leave and go your separate ways. As you're walking down the street you hear sirens and you get stopped by the cops who say you match the description of a guy who just robbed Wells Fargo 3 mins ago. Are you saying that even though your friend, the barrista and a lady who you exchanged phone numbers with will all verify that you've been at Starbucks for the past 30-45 minutes, you are still going to keep your mouth shut and refuse to talk to the police? You're going to stand there and demand an attorney or just say nothing at all?

Good luck with that.

 

[Malcolm2]

Koolau, I think you watch too much television, Hollywood does not reflect reality. There are about 18,000 law enforcement organizations in the United States. Most officers, and Federal Agents are not lurking around trying to convict an innocent person. Most people in the U.S. trust them, and for good reason - they have earned it. Your example of an officer trying to threaten a Dr in order to get medical records just would never happen, as the officer would be committing a crime not to mention that there are legal ways to get the records. If it has happened, post a link to the story please.
Nodak's story of the Eagle feather is also a joke, post a link.

Bottom line is defense attorneys have a more difficult job getting a guilty person off if the guilty person honestly admits his guilt to the cops. Has nothing to do with keeping an innocent person out of jail. I knew a prominent former defense attorney fairly well and once asked him how many of his clients were actually innocent. His reply..."one, I think".

It is true the system is designed to let off several guilty people before convicting an innocent person. It works that way for a reason, and I think generally works well, with some exceptions (OJ?). If you are the family of the victim when the guilty walk it seems crazy. There is no need for additional people to try to get more obviously guilty people off.

I doubt the cop from Virginia Beach (size 840 officers) has ever worked with police in another country, has made 'thousands of felony arrests' or speaks for the other 17,000+ law enforcement agencies. Rarely would a good cop grow up and want to be a defense attorney.

Honest people (most of you) should just keep being honest. Don't commit a felony. If you do, by all means get a lawyer (a good but honest one) and hope you are one of the criminals that get off.

 

[utrecht]

I doubt several things that the cop said:
1) No way he has done 1000s of interviews. At least not in an official capacity or in an interview room type setting.
2) No way hes made 1000s of felony arrests and 2500 misdemeanor arrests. I work in a city of 4000 officers. We can actually look up our entire arrest history and NOBODY on my huge department has that many arrests. He has this whole speech rehearsed and is very smooth but stumbles over his words when he talks about how many arrests hes made. That's a sure sign of someone lying.
3) He said his conviction rate is 98%. I've never heard a single detective who has ever known what his conviction rate is. We don't keep stats like that. Most cases never go to court. They either get plead out or dropped and unless he looked up every single case of his, he would never know what happened.

This cop is a bigger blowhard than the lawyer is and I don't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. Think about someone in your profession that you knew was full of sh*t and you will see how I feel.

 

[Buckeye]

I doubt several things that the cop said:
1) No way he has done 1000s of interviews. At least not in an official capacity or in an interview room type setting.
2) No way hes made 1000s of felony arrests and 2500 misdemeanor arrests. I work in a city of 4000 officers. We can actually look up our entire arrest history and NOBODY on my huge department has that many arrests. He has this whole speech rehearsed and is very smooth but stumbles over his words when he talks about how many arrests hes made. That's a sure sign of someone lying.
3) He said his conviction rate is 98%. I've never heard a single detective who has ever known what his conviction rate is. We don't keep stats like that. Most cases never go to court. They either get plead out or dropped and unless he looked up every single case of his, he would never know what happened.

This cop is a bigger blowhard than the lawyer is and I don't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. Think about someone in your profession that you knew was full of sh*t and you will see how I feel.

I got the impression the lawyer and the cop were talking to the cop's law school class. The cop made a joke at the beginning that it was harder to get out of law school (graduating?) than it was to get in. I thought I heard him use 'we' which made me think they were speaking to members of his class.

 

[eytonxav]

If you haven't done anything wrong, I think we'd be in a pretty sad state of affairs in this country if you can't talk to the police without fear of being unfairly charged. I'd be more fearful of unscrupulous attorneys and over zealous prosecutors than in a few bad LEOs trying to stick me with something I didn't do.

 

[frayne]

I doubt several things that the cop said:
1) No way he has done 1000s of interviews. At least not in an official capacity or in an interview room type setting.
2) No way hes made 1000s of felony arrests and 2500 misdemeanor arrests. I work in a city of 4000 officers. We can actually look up our entire arrest history and NOBODY on my huge department has that many arrests. He has this whole speech rehearsed and is very smooth but stumbles over his words when he talks about how many arrests hes made. That's a sure sign of someone lying.
3) He said his conviction rate is 98%. I've never heard a single detective who has ever known what his conviction rate is. We don't keep stats like that. Most cases never go to court. They either get plead out or dropped and unless he looked up every single case of his, he would never know what happened.

This cop is a bigger blowhard than the lawyer is and I don't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. Think about someone in your profession that you knew was full of sh*t and you will see how I feel.

Pretty much my take as well.

 

[ERhoosier]

.......

I was a jury member in August on a family assault case and I was impressed that everything that the arresting police officer stated could be, and was, verified by actual voice recordings of the events.......

This should be no surprise. I'll bet my last $ that officer had listened to those tapes many times before giving his testimony in court. Everyone involved in the case prob had access to those tapes before trial (part of discovery process).

 

[Nodak]

Nodak's story of the Eagle feather is also a joke, post a link.

Sorry, there is no link, that is not an area of the country with a daily paper or any news gathering organization of any kind. There is a weekly paper but there is no major coverage of anything. For example, a resident of my home town was recently busted for 7 counts of child porn; that warranted a one paragraph article in the paper. I only have the word of the person who had the feather and his neighbors who saw the agents at his house. I know it may be hard to understand for those that live in high density population areas but that is the way things are in a state with an average population density of 9 people per square mile.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Sorry, there is no link, that is not an area of the country with a daily paper or any news gathering organization of any kind. There is a weekly paper but there is no major coverage of anything. For example, a resident of my home town was recently busted for 7 counts of child porn; that warranted a one paragraph article in the paper. I only have the word of the person who had the feather and his neighbors who saw the agents at his house.

How did the federal agents even know your friend had this innocently acquired feather?

 

[Nodak]

How did the federal agents even know your friend had this innocently acquired feather?

That is a question that has bothered me too. I know he had it attached to a hat he wore so I am assuming someone saw and reported it.
Edit to add:
There are several game wardens assigned to that area because of the amount of wildlife so it is possible my friend talked to one of them while wearing his hat with the feather in the hat band.

 

[Original Wally]

As was said... YMMV. There is ANOTHER reason to never talk to a peace officer without an attorney present -the CIVIL side of an issue. Say you ARE involved in "something" and the peace officer is "interviewing" you to determine if your involvement rises to the level of a criminal offense. Of course, the level of proof required for a Criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" ##HOWEVER##, in a civil case it is merely "the preponderence of the evidence" - more this way than that. SO, anything you say to a peace officer can ALSO be used in a civil case. And THAT has a much lower level of "proof" needed. DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE without an attorney present.

 

[braumeister]

DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE without an attorney present.

Is it possible we might be going just a bit too far out on the limb here?

 

[haha]

Is it possible we might be going just a bit too far out on the limb here?

Wife: Honey, I'm feeling kind of affectionate. Ya think you could talk a little sweetness to me and maybe I will do a little something for you?

Husband:Just a minute until I call Bert, my attorney, and have him hurry over. Whatever you have in mind will have to wait wait until he arrives.

Ha

 

[Original Wally]

Shall I edit that to mean.... talk to anyone about any legal matter without having an attorney present That makes it clearer what I meant. And, YES, that includes family (unless spouses are exempt from being compelled to testify against spouses - of no exemption, then them too). The civil side of the matter is often overlooked. Remember, it was the CIVIL side where OJ was found guilty, not the criminal.

AND... **sometimes** it WOULD be better to have an attorney present when talking to your spouse. Just sayin.

 

[braumeister]

And be sure your tinfoil hat is at least two layers thick?

Seriously, I don't think 98% of us would take such an extreme position. And they can't put us ALL in prison.