Never Talk To The Police

[buddy_fuentes]

I started reading comments after I made my comment and realized that some very long comments posted. I didn't want to take the time to read all of the post, so please forgive me if a I comment on something that has been covered. Below is my original comment and I think some of you have misread my thoughts as I had intended them.

I am a retired policeman (over 30 years) and I can assure you that if you refuse to talk to a police officer he will think that you are hiding something. He is going to look deep into your soul to find what he can, maybe causing you unneeded problems in the process. And if you are not guilty of anything, he will be waisting his time and yours. Now if you are involved......that's another thing. You should zip your lip and request an attorney.

Everyone must decide for himself at the time something happens and don't believe everything I tell you or the Internet lawyers tell you. Up jumps the Devil and it's your decision, alone. The Internet Lawyer won't be there to help you...and neither will I.

Buddy

I did not say that you should or shouldn't talk to the police if you are not guilty of anything. If I'm not involved in a crime (other than a witness) I would be more than happy to tell them anything I know or saw. That is my opinion of what I Would do.

Flex brought into the discussion a shooting. Good shooting, bad shooting, accidental shooting, ugly shooting, any shooting.........GET A LAWYER!!!

I did say if you are involved in any way that you should zip your lip and request an attorney. Most people think that they are so smart that they can out smart the police. And some may very well do that, however, the police officer does his job everyday, as you do yours, and becomes more proficient as time go on. They develop an extra sense of perception that reads between the lines, so to speak. Body language and demeanor tell them a story as you weave your lie.

Your Internet lawyer said, in my interpretation, to never talk to the police. I disagree.

Buddy

[davidwiz]

I would never trust legal advice given by a "photojournalist". "Leaking" a police report is a bad idea. So is saying anything to the police, including "I' was afraid for my life". Let your attorney talk to the police, that is their job, not yours. Also, having someone make any "statements" on your behalf is a bad idea too - let your attorney speak for you, no one else. This reminds me of the part-time police officer who frequently writes articles for the various gun rags and has a habit of giving out incorrect legal advice.

[Chuck Anderson]

Talk to the police or don't. That is your option and your right to do so. However, I will tell you that I have had many instances where a person talking to me has gotten them out of trouble. I've done at least a dozen consent searches, probably closer to 50, where it turned out there was no problem and the person was all done. Without the consent search, additional investigation would have been required that may have had negative consequences on them. I've had several cases where after talking to the suspect, I was able to determine that the "victim" was either flat out lying or not being entirely truthful. Several of these were cases where, before the suspect interview occurred, there was probable cause to arrest. While it may not have been the easiest case to win at trial, if the suspect is not willing to talk, there is probably a trip to jail coming up. Depending on my individual circumstances it might be a better idea to talk than to risk arrest. Example from a report I was reading yesterday. Dad calls 911 to report a fight between him and 16 year old son. Dad says son hit him and he did not hit son. Son has big old black eye and says dad hit him. If dad stopped there or didn't talk to LE at all, I guarantee he would have been arrested and taken to jail. Two stories, one has a visible injury to back it up. The rest of the story dad told was that the son self inflicted the injury. Son eventually admitted days later that he did cause the injury to himself to get dad thrown in jail.

Also it was briefly mentioned for the shooting incidents. If you are involved in something and there is evidence that may be lost, strongly consider pointing that out. CSI folks are not infallible and may very well miss that. Escpecially if they have no idea where to look for it. I've got an Att. Murder case sitting on my desk. CSI initailly decided a bullet found a couple blocks away didn't come from the incident. After viewing the detailed diagrams created because of witness and victim interviews, the bullet did come from the shooting. But if noone told us where they were standing there would have been no way to determine that.

[SA Friday]

I have a true instance here of IBTL (in before the lock...as many of our LEO threads seem to devolve into an us vs them thing)... If I get a chance in the next day or two, I dig up a thread on a different forum that has suggestions on how to handle yourself if you are every involved in a (justified) shooting.

I started to post a comment about the advice our legal advisor gave to us, but it was getting long, so I passed, but seeing your comment it made me think again. Everyone here should know/think about this stuff as I'm certain 99.9999% of the folks here aren't criminals and should be aware of the best way to protect themselves.

Here's what we were told, in a nutshell.....If I am involved in a use-of-force incident I've been advised to give the minimum information required consistent with the situation. i.e. if I'm at a 7-Eleven and somebody sticks the joint up and I cap them, when the local PD show up I'd say something like "The bad guy was armed and was robbing the place and I had to use my weapon to stop them". They need a little bit to work with, but after that, I don't say anything and then I will be directed to give a compelled statement. A compelled statement can only be used against me in an administrative action and can not be used in any legal proceedings either criminal or civil.

The regular Joe/Jane with a CCW permit should do something similar. You'd probably have to give a few details along the lines of "the bad guy was robbing the joint/mugging me etc and if you have any additional questions, I'll be glad to entertain them once I have counsel present".

One reason I posted this is that it may not be the police that you have to worry about. If you answer questions beyond the most basic and the responsible authorities determine you were 100% justified and don't charge you, you are STILL open to civil charges brought by the bad guy or his family and those statements will all be allowed in the civil action....and the standard for guilt is much lower in civil law as it's usually the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Same training on my side too, but also quantify fear for your life and limb in your very brief statement when the cops arrive. "I was in fear for my life" is entirely appropriate. For those in the free states with make-my-day laws like CO and TX, I would also ensure you very briefly quantify they broke into the house (if that's the case). In a LOT of cases, after the shift Sgt or Detective arrives and establishes the person you shot broke in the residence and you shot them, they tote the burglar off in an ambulance or coroners vehicle, file a one page incident report and that's that. You don't quantify the very basic elements of the make-my-day law and the cops have to investigate to establish the facts and it could takes weeks instead of hours, crime scene processing, interviews, etc etc before its taken care of. Give the very basic facts to the cops on arrival, and ask for your attorney be present for anything more. This establishes you as a victim, establishes the basic facts justifying the shoot, sets your position as cooperative and intelligent, and seriously helps with the cop's safety concerns.

[bgary]

Two quick questions... sorry in advance if either of these results in thread-drift...

I've done at least a dozen consent searches, probably closer to 50, where it turned out there was no problem and the person was all done. Without the consent search, additional investigation would have been required that may have had negative consequences on them.

So... let's say I'm just the average "good guy" driving down the highway, 2am on a weeknight, and I get pulled over by one of the state's finest. He notes that there are big plastic bins full of "stuff" in the back of my SUV (as there will be when I drive to the Area-1 tomorrow), and asks for my consent to search the vehicle "just for his own safety".

My "instinct" is to say "sure, no problem" - I've got nothing to hide. Any guns I might have in the vehicle are properly secured in accordance with FOPA; there are no drugs or contraband or hidden stashes of cash, so... why not? But my *belief* is that my answer should be "no". So... what happens if I decline consent? I mean, in real-life terms, standing at the side of the road outside my car, what is going to happen? Should I expect to be detained? Cuffed? Taken in? What *should* happen, and how much control (if any) do I have over the outcome, once I decline permission to search? Are there questions I should ask the officer? (e.g., "can you please tell me what probable cause you have to search my vehicle?" "can you please tell me why you are detaining me?"), or will that make things worse?

And... separate, but related, how many of you have a lawyer on speed dial, that could represent you at 2am on a moment's notice? I know *I* don't. I have a divorce lawyer somewhere out there who hasn't heard from me for 15+ years; I have nodding relationships with a couple of tax or corporate attorneys, but I don't currently have any idea who I'd call if I needed a criminal defense attorney, and I suspect that 2am at the side of the road is not the best time to try to find a good one. So... what do/did other folks do? Do you have one lined up already? On retainer? Or are you going to be calling a friend who can look through the yellow pages while you wait?

B

Edited June 24, 2008 by bgary

[Rob Boudrie]

Residents in the DPRM (Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts) have yet another factor in the equation.

The district and appellate courts in this state have ruled that ones license to possess any firearm other than a low capacity rifle or shotgun may be revoked if the police chief who issues decides that exercising your right to remain silent when questioned renders you "unsuitable to be so licensed" and that, while the former license may be entitled to some relief, that relief is not reinstatement of the license.

[SA Friday]

Residence searches require probable cause (PC), no PC, have a nice day... Cars are a lot more iffy. Some states require little to no PC to conduct a search. So, that might be more difficult to answer. But at the very least I would expect a minor delay while the officer contacts his shift leader and possibly the LEO atty for further guidance. You ALWAYS have the right to not give consent to a search, and it is your right. I'm a fed and my wife is a paralegal. You will never receive consent from either of us for a search, period. Just expect for a possible delay in your plans if the LEO wants to push for a PC search. It really comes down to the state you are in and the laws they have on how this might play out.

With my wife being a paralegal, I can get a lawyer on the phone pretty quick. I don't keep one in my phone, but know how to get one fast. Not a bad idea to at least have an idea on how to get a hold of one in a timely fashion if necessary.

[Flexmoney]

"I do not consent..."

"Am I free to go?"

That (seems to) places the burden on the officer. He/she would be required to have a legit reason (probably cause) to further detain you and/or do a search, I believe. (stuff "in plain sight" might give probably cause? depending on the stuff, I guess)

Here is another:

(long version, with a couple of different scenarios)

(short version, on "How to Refuse a Police Search" during a traffic stop)

Lots of stuff like this out there. Take it all in. Keep the stuff that sounds right for you. throw out the rest.

(EDIT...changed links...somehow I got the white supremacist link by mistake )

[davidwiz]

Re: "consent" searches. Talk to someone who has been stopped for DWB. The NJ State Police were/are under a US DOJ consent decree to stop doing "consent" searches, because of DWB stops. The NJ State Police would stop people on the NJ Turnpike or Parkway, for some non-existent reason, and then ask for "consent" to search the vehicle. After enough people complained, it was determined that the vast vast majority of people who were stopped was b/c they were DWB.

If refusal to "consent" to a search results in more investigation, so be it. It's not worth it to give up your rights. It is not your job as a citizen to help the police investigate you. That is their job.

Re: Finding an attorney. Here are some suggestions: (1) If you already worked with an attorney in the past, it is very likely that they will know an attorney that they can refer you to. (2) Your local county bar association has an attorney referral service.

[davidwiz]

"I do not consent..."

"Am I free to go?"

That (seems to) places the burden on the officer. He/she would be required to have a legit reason (probably cause) to further detain you and/or do a search, I believe. (stuff "in plain sight" might give probably cause? depending on the stuff, I guess)

That is exactly right.

If they are doing what is called a Terry Stop a/k/a/ a "pat and frisk" then the police can only pat you down searching for contraband. To do a Terry Stop, the police must have a "reasonable suspicion" that (1) a crime has occurred or is about to occur and (2) you are in possession of contraband. The police can't search your pockets or possessions, only pat you down.

Each state has their own laws and constitution, which makes it difficult to says what exactly the "rules" are. If you have a criminal law question, it is best to talk to an attorney who practices criminal law in your state.

Edited June 24, 2008 by davidwiz

[Rob Boudrie]

"I do not consent..."

"Am I free to go?"

It can actually be quite entertaining to use these lines when the shoplifting beeper goes off because someone forgot to de-activate a tag and the store employees asks to look at the contents of a bag of your personal possessions (which are no longer "merchandise" since you have paid for them).

I used these lines at Home Depot once and the clerk reacted like a deer stuck in the headlights without a clue as to how to react.

[sci]

You can always challange probable cause

You cant challange consent

[G-ManBart]

My "instinct" is to say "sure, no problem" - I've got nothing to hide. Any guns I might have in the vehicle are properly secured in accordance with FOPA; there are no drugs or contraband or hidden stashes of cash, so... why not? But my *belief* is that my answer should be "no". So... what happens if I decline consent? I mean, in real-life terms, standing at the side of the road outside my car, what is going to happen? Should I expect to be detained? Cuffed? Taken in? What *should* happen, and how much control (if any) do I have over the outcome, once I decline permission to search? Are there questions I should ask the officer? (e.g., "can you please tell me what probable cause you have to search my vehicle?" "can you please tell me why you are detaining me?"), or will that make things worse?

B

If they don't have probable cause for a search, about all they can do is detain you for a "reasonable period of time" if they plan on running a drug/bomb dog around your vehicle. Each court has it's own standard for what a reasonable length of time might be in this situation. If they have a drug dog on duty and heading to the scene and it's going to take 20min, you're going to be waiting. If not, they can't wait for hours for one to come on duty and/or respond from home. If you're polite and appear to be compliant, they're probably not going to handcuff you, but most likely just have you sit/stand off to the side while they wait for the K9 unit to show up. If the dog doesn't alert, they have to let you go. If the dog alerts, they then have PC for a search.

Personally, I'd always say "no" and if they have a dog on duty, so be it, I'll wait. R,

[DonT]

Question; For vehicle searches, why would you not comply if you have nothing to hide? Is the non consent just out of principal of you're constitutional right?

During my 49yrs experience as a citizen, I have been pulled over a couple of several times and told that my vehicle matches the description of one their looking for ...seems to be the universal reason to pull over a vehicle for no cause. A couple of those times I was asked if I would consent to a search. I said ok. They searched me, my vehicle, and ran a check. All was good and I was sent on my way. I feel that had I not consented, I would have been taken to the station and my vehicle impounded. So in this instance who's to say what the "right" decision would be?

To say never talk to the police, I can't buy that. I think setting a default response to varying circumstances would not work well. Just my opinion. I agree to never give anymore info than necessary (open mouth insert foot).

For the more serious situations, shooting, etc., fortunately I've never had to deal with it and I would say that I would have to cross that bridge when I come to it but, I have found if I have nothing to hide, I'm being truthful, and I treat LE with the respect and kindness they deserve, there has never been a problem. Is this being too naive?

[mpolans]

Question; For vehicle searches, why would you not comply if you have nothing to hide? Is the non consent just out of principal of you're constitutional right?

snip

Personally, I wouldn't want to consent to a search if I've got guns in the car because I'm worried that a cop, who might not have a perfect understanding of 2nd Amendment law, might give me a bunch of grief.

Worst case scenario, I get arrested for some B.S. and my guns get taken as evidence. Sure, I might later be released and exonerated, but who knows how hard it would be to get my guns back out of the evidence locker and who knows how much they've been abused in the interim?

[DonT]

Question; For vehicle searches, why would you not comply if you have nothing to hide? Is the non consent just out of principal of you're constitutional right?

snip

Personally, I wouldn't want to consent to a search if I've got guns in the car because I'm worried that a cop, who might not have a perfect understanding of 2nd Amendment law, might give me a bunch of grief.

Worst case scenario, I get arrested for some B.S. and my guns get taken as evidence. Sure, I might later be released and exonerated, but who knows how hard it would be to get my guns back out of the evidence locker and who knows how much they've been abused in the interim?

Yes, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to consent to a search of the vehicle when you have guns, even if all are legal. But I have to wonder, in the real world, what kind of mood are you going to put the officer in by not consenting to a search. Will he say, oh, ok. Thanks anyway. You're free to go now.

[ima45dv8]

A friend was asked for consent to search his vehicle while I was a passenger. After dismantling the car pretty thoroughly and declaring there was nothing to be found, they started toward their cruiser. We said, "Hey! Aren't you going to put all this back???"

"Nope", they said, "and don't leave any trash out here either."

Based on that experience, and on advice of counsel and several local LEOs I know, the answer when asked if they can search my vehicle is, "No, thank you. I don't like people going through my personal things."

This of course varies by state, but in GA, your car is considered an extension of your home. It does however have special considerations due to its mobility. The standard for PC is lower. Lacking enough reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pass review, they might ask to search a vehicle. That's a pretty clear admission that PC has not yet been established. If they had PC, they wouldn't be asking -- they'd be searching. If you decline and get the, "If I have to go to the judge/magistrate and get a warrant you'll get no breaks from me!" routine, stand firm. What exactly could they swear to in front of the magistrate that would serve as probable cause, when they didn't have sufficient PC to search without your consent?

[bgary]

If the dog doesn't alert, they have to let you go. If the dog alerts, they then have PC for a search.

OK, so that begs the question... do the dogs alert on GSR? 'Cuz I'm thinking... with a half-dozen competition guns in the back of the rig, plus a couple of carry pieces locked in the drawer, plus associated ammo for each, plus... oh, I don't know, call it 10 years worth of residue in the bottom of my shooting bag and brass bucket... I gotta think my rig is going to *reek* of GSR. All of it is *legal*, and stored/secured appropriately, but... if the smell of guns gives them PC to search my vehicle, they're going to be in it anyway.

[SA Friday]

A friend was asked for consent to search his vehicle while I was a passenger. After dismantling the car pretty thoroughly and declaring there was nothing to be found, they started toward their cruiser. We said, "Hey! Aren't you going to put all this back???"

"Nope", they said, "and don't leave any trash out here either."

Based on that experience, and on advice of counsel and several local LEOs I know, the answer when asked if they can search my vehicle is, "No, thank you. I don't like people going through my personal things."

This of course varies by state, but in GA, your car is considered an extension of your home. It does however have special considerations due to its mobility. The standard for PC is lower. Lacking enough reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pass review, they might ask to search a vehicle. That's a pretty clear admission that PC has not yet been established. If they had PC, they wouldn't be asking -- they'd be searching. If you decline and get the, "If I have to go to the judge/magistrate and get a warrant you'll get no breaks from me!" routine, stand firm. What exactly could they swear to in front of the magistrate that would serve as probable cause, when they didn't have sufficient PC to search without your consent?

Actually, even standing there with a search warrant in my folder, I will always ask for consent first. 1, its polite; and 2, if I have both consent and a warrant if it goes to court it's harder to get it thrown out.

[SA Friday]

If the dog doesn't alert, they have to let you go. If the dog alerts, they then have PC for a search.

OK, so that begs the question... do the dogs alert on GSR? 'Cuz I'm thinking... with a half-dozen competition guns in the back of the rig, plus a couple of carry pieces locked in the drawer, plus associated ammo for each, plus... oh, I don't know, call it 10 years worth of residue in the bottom of my shooting bag and brass bucket... I gotta think my rig is going to *reek* of GSR. All of it is *legal*, and stored/secured appropriately, but... if the smell of guns gives them PC to search my vehicle, they're going to be in it anyway.

The answer to that is definately maybe. It depends on what the dog has been trained to alert on, and it depends on the reliability of the dog. If it's a bomb dog vs a drug dog then it will probably alert on your vehicle. Even if a bomb/explosives dog it will depend on what the dog has been trained to alert on.

[G-ManBart]

A friend was asked for consent to search his vehicle while I was a passenger. After dismantling the car pretty thoroughly and declaring there was nothing to be found, they started toward their cruiser. We said, "Hey! Aren't you going to put all this back???"

"Nope", they said, "and don't leave any trash out here either."

Based on that experience, and on advice of counsel and several local LEOs I know, the answer when asked if they can search my vehicle is, "No, thank you. I don't like people going through my personal things."

This of course varies by state, but in GA, your car is considered an extension of your home. It does however have special considerations due to its mobility. The standard for PC is lower. Lacking enough reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pass review, they might ask to search a vehicle. That's a pretty clear admission that PC has not yet been established. If they had PC, they wouldn't be asking -- they'd be searching. If you decline and get the, "If I have to go to the judge/magistrate and get a warrant you'll get no breaks from me!" routine, stand firm. What exactly could they swear to in front of the magistrate that would serve as probable cause, when they didn't have sufficient PC to search without your consent?

Not necessarily. They'll often ask for consent even if they have PC or a search warrant in hand....consent looks a lot better than a warrant or PC when you go to court.

One reason why I tell people to decline is that there's always a crazy chance that they find something you didn't know about....it's not likely, but it could happen.

[Flexmoney]

Hey all...I edited some links in an earlier post of mine. They weren't what I meant to link to. (they were in the same neighborhood on youtube/google and somehow I copied and pasted the wrong stuff...same topic, but the wrong stuff)

(Tim, thanks for the heads-up.)

[Viggen]

I knew a fair number of deputies at a local SO in a far away state. One of the general topics of discussion and laughter was requesting to search on a traffic stop when there was no PC. The Deputies viewed the people who consented as morons - and about everybody did consent, because it would be "easier" and "quicker", this was a very rural county.

One of the guys would sometimes bring his dog, personal pet, along when he scheduled his traffic stop/speed traps. He would ask any likely customers he stopped if they "had anything they wanted to tell him, or did they want him to bring the dog up...?". Always mind games with that bunch.

Clean or dirty, innocent or not, always refuse permission, you will be better off. Cops bluff and cops lie, it's their training.

Do understand that cops don't like being turned down, some are vindictive and inventive - be polite.

[DonT]

Wow . This is some scary stuff you guy's are talking about. I guess I'm guilty of being a moron and holding LE to a higher standard, at least in my mind.

I have known and know numerous LEO's and am fortunate that none have resembled those mentioned. Not to say they're not out there.

We each have our own opinions and I'm glad we have a place to share them even if we don't always agree.

This is one of those times you just have to follow your gut instinct.

[John Dunn]

Thanks for clearing that up Flex, didn't think white supremacy had a place here!