Never talk to the cops (here's why)

[DarkJedi]

I thought this was interesting:

This treatise is in no way meant as a criticism of Larken Rose or his legal position on the Tax Code. But it is an excellent example of why a citizen of today should not cooperate in any way with law enforcement officers of any kind, and in particular, with federal agents. It doesn't matter if they are asking for your help as a possible witness or just for information -- or they consider you a suspect of some kind. Because so many people try to talk their way out of an initial law enforcement contact situation, they go to prison. Most cops will admit that 70% of the people in prison today wouldn't be there if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

Best example: Martha Stewart. Stewart was not convicted of stock trading fraud; she was convicted of lying to a federal investigator -- which is a federal crime. How do you avoid such a charge? Don't talk to a federal investigator of any kind, for any reason, ever, on or off the record. It's always on the record.

Worden's Rule 1: Stick your tongue between your teeth and bite down until the blood flows. Do not admit to anything. Especially, do not deny anything. Remain mute, no matter how long they try to drag the interview out. Even if an attorney representing you is present, say nothing unless in the privacy of his/her office.

They will show you evidence that you did something. You will be tempted beyond most human ability to resist to explain that evidence away. Don't do it. Don't agree to any kind of test, be it polygraph, blood test or even taking your fingerprints unless they force it upon you, but through it all, remain silent.

They will tell you somebody said something incriminating about you, or that you were somewhere or that they said you were doing something or did something. Remain silent. Do not admit to or deny anything. If they ask you how you're feeling, say nothing. If they ask you if it's raining and you know it is coming down like Noah's Flood, say nothing.

Worden's Rule 2: Force the law enforcement agents to work only with the evidence they have. Do not allow your attorney or yourself to provide them with any defense you plan to use if you are charged with a crime unless and until you are in court and testifying to a jury -- if that is necessary or wise at all. That way, they have to guess what defense you plan to use, which makes it much more difficult for a prosecutor to prepare the case they have against you. Never speak to anyone, especially a cellmate in jail, about your case and how innocent or guilty you are. Remain absolutely silent on the matter, and especially during telephone conversations.

Law enforcement officers largely depend on suspects to try to talk their way out of a situation so they don't have to spend time in jail. When they do talk, everything they say gives the law enforcement agent places to go, places to look, people to talk to, etc., and that additional input often is what lands the suspect in prison, guilty or not.

Law enforcement agents will tell you they are only trying to eliminate you as a suspect. You will be tempted to help them. Don't do it. Stay absolutely silent no matter how guilty they will say it makes you look.

Wordens Rule 3: If you are charged with a crime, the only time it counts for you to offer an explanation is in front of the judge or jury hearing your case -- and in most cases like that, it is still better you don't testify at all because when you do you can be cross-examined by the prosecution.

Worden's Rule 4: Never allow your attorney or yourself to waive your right to a speedy trial. Prosecutors and investigators use the time you are waiting for trial to develop more evidence against you. By demanding your constitutional right to a speedy trial, you shorten the time they have to build a stronger case against you. You reduce the time a witness might be identified or located to testify against you. If they proceed with prosecuting you with the shoddy evidence they have and you are acquitted, they cannot try you again for the same crime, even if you walk out of the courthouse after an acquittal and admit to the press you did it!

Look at what happened to Scott Peterson. Not only did he talk to the Modesto cops, he allowed interviews with reporters that were later used to paint him a liar. Had Peterson remained absolutely silent, no matter how guilty it might have made him look, a lot of the "liar" evidence used to convict him would never have been made available to the prosecution and the jury.

Getting back to the feds: The federal government made it a crime to merely lie to a federal investigator. For that reason and that reason alone, don't talk to a federal investigator, ever, about anything. They enacted and enforce that law, so it is best for every citizen not to speak to a federal investigator about anything, ever. They can't charge you with lying to them if you haven't spoken to them. Get it?

[MGPspots]

Good stuff - read the whole thing. Hope I never have to use it!

[Shoehorn!]

Theres a few holes in that.

[MGPspots]

Originally Posted by Shoehorn

Theres a few holes in that.

A few; such as it doesn't sound great to a jury that you present a defense which u never bothered to mention to the police (not sure if this can be used at trial in the US - it was introduced to the UK about 7 years ago)

[Homer]

That's a good lesson

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Shoehorn

Theres a few holes in that.

Such as? It's not very productive of you to make this statement and then fail to point out said holes.

All things considered I'd say that is a pretty good article. If you watch a lot of CSI you might be under the impression that the police are only interested in finding the exact truth, when in fact they are often most interested in "nailing the perp."

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Such as? It's not very productive of you to make this statement and then fail to point out said holes.

All things considered I'd say that is a pretty good article. If you watch a lot of CSI you might be under the impression that the police are only interested in finding the exact truth, when in fact they are often most interested in "nailing the perp."

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say there's a chance you could be nailed with obstruction if you were to become extraordinarily obstinate and they wanted to be pissy with you.

The 'STFU' method of dealing with law enforcement has never steered me wrong though.

[nofx]

interesting morning thread

;]

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by rickholio

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say there's a chance you could be nailed with obstruction if you were to become extraordinarily obstinate and they wanted to be pissy with you.

The 'STFU' method of dealing with law enforcement has never steered me wrong though.

Obstruction? Well.... I suppose one has to try to weigh out the situation and try to figure out where he or she stands as far as what angle the cops are wroking. I highly doubt though that there is any harm in telling cops you will be talking to your lawyer first before saying anything.

[kmanrox]

Originally Posted by rickholio

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say there's a chance you could be nailed with obstruction if you were to become extraordinarily obstinate and they wanted to be pissy with you.

The 'STFU' method of dealing with law enforcement has never steered me wrong though.

you're right.. i was giving a deposition at a GF's child custody hearing and I pulled a Ronald Reagan and said 'I don't recall' to every question, even questions about if I even knew the girl etc, and the lawyer was like 'i will be recommending the judge hold mr K-Man in contempt and obstruction of justice for not cooperating'.... It was just a child cust. hearing, so they figured it probably wasnt worth the trouble, or whatever, because I didnt hear shit after that.

i also wore dark sunglasses during the whole interview... lol 'delusions of grandeur'

[Shoehorn!]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Such as? It's not very productive of you to make this statement and then fail to point out said holes.

All things considered I'd say that is a pretty good article. If you watch a lot of CSI you might be under the impression that the police are only interested in finding the exact truth, when in fact they are often most interested in "nailing the perp."

Well, first let me say this, CSI is a television show. If that is the basis of your argument then I could say something like "Well, if I get arrested and jailed and I am innocent, I'll call the A-Team and they'll save me in the pursuit of justice," or if they're unavailable, any other TV show where the good guys prevail. But, since you want some examples, heres what struck me as interesting

"Force the law enforcement agents to work only with the evidence they have."

Um, I am not sure if this is limited to the interrogation room or what, but if the government wants information, they'll get it. If you don't give them the information they want, they'll get a warrant and get it themselves.

Another one that caught my attention was

"They enacted and enforce that law, so it is best for every citizen not to speak to a federal investigator about anything, ever."

This is just absurd. I don't think I would be incriminating myself if I asked an FBI agent which way the bathroom was, or what time the parade was going to start.

Sure, sometimes it might be in your best interest to plead the Fifth, but for the most part I think that this article shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[Cassie]

Originally Posted by MGPspots

Good stuff - read the whole thing. Hope I never have to use it!

same here

[Metalsound]

Nice and wise advise

I have experiences similar to that and I have a friend who was incriminated with a fake crime scene. He was not an Angel though.

[nojob]

Good Read. Thanks for the info. Too bad I stay away from trouble.

[Rinaldo]

They can charge you with obstruction sure, but it won't hold up in court if you haven't said anything since it's your fucking Right not to say anything.

[Twe Russ]

This is good info. Usually during the scene you are quick to explain yourself to anyone.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Most of that is entirely good and true advice..


Basically you have to gauge if you are smarter than a team of investigators/cops/etc

I'll give you an example.

(although not a great one because both of them were stupid )

On c.o.p.s. i saw this episode on street patrol , they rolled up on a lady obviously buying some crack from a street dealer who was leaning in her car on the passenger side. When they rolled up the crackhead ran off. They searched her car and found a crack rock on the passenger side floor.

So anyways she says , gee i just stopped and asked directions and the guy was giving me directions when you pulled up behind me then he tossed something in the car and took off running.

So in the end they let her go, if she had said nothing they would have arrested her for possesion , taken her 2 kids away and she would never have gotten them back most likely.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by Platinum Rinaldo

They can charge you with obstruction sure, but it won't hold up in court if you haven't said anything since it's your fucking Right not to say anything.

Not necessarily true. On the Federal level every indictment is handed down by a Federal Grand Jury whose purpose is to investigate a crime and recommend to a prosecuter who should be charged and with what. If you are considered a witness and are subpeoned by a grand jury you have no choice, you have to talk or you will be charged with obstruction and criminal contempt. There is no invoking your 5th amendment rights to a grand jury as a witness, if you do the prosecutor normally grants you immunity to what you say (notice I said what YOU say, they can still charge you based on other evidence), once there is immunity to your testimony then you cannot invoke the 5th. Now if you're the 'target' of the grand jury you can invoke the 5th because obviously the prosecutor is not going to grant immunity. Susan McDougal is a good example of this, she was not the target of any investigation but she refused to testify to the grand jury and spent 18 months in prison because of it. Bottom line is when the govt wants info they get it.

[DarkJedi]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Not necessarily true. On the Federal level every indictment is handed down by a Federal Grand Jury whose purpose is to investigate a crime and recommend to a prosecuter who should be charged and with what. If you are considered a witness and are subpeoned by a grand jury you have no choice, you have to talk or you will be charged with obstruction and criminal contempt. There is no invoking your 5th amendment rights to a grand jury as a witness, if you do the prosecutor normally grants you immunity to what you say (notice I said what YOU say, they can still charge you based on other evidence), once there is immunity to your testimony then you cannot invoke the 5th. Now if you're the 'target' of the grand jury you can invoke the 5th because obviously the prosecutor is not going to grant immunity. Susan McDougal is a good example of this, she was not the target of any investigation but she refused to testify to the grand jury and spent 18 months in prison because of it. Bottom line is when the govt wants info they get it.

Yes, you have to testify before the jury.
But you still don't have to say anything to the cops/investigators.

[Kicker]

nice lesson!

[pornguy]

Getting back to the feds: The federal government made it a crime to merely lie to a federal investigator. For that reason and that reason alone, don't talk to a federal investigator, ever, about anything. They enacted and enforce that law, so it is best for every citizen not to speak to a federal investigator about anything, ever. They can't charge you with lying to them if you haven't spoken to them. Get it?



But they can and will charge you with obstruction of justice, which in federal I think is 5 years.

This guy says some smart things, but has a lot of SHIT mixed in with it.

If you make the officer FORCE you to be finger printed, it is resisting with out viloence, and is another charge, and it makes you look to a judge and jury like you are unwilling to cooperate. Which is a strike against you.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Not necessarily true. On the Federal level every indictment is handed down by a Federal Grand Jury whose purpose is to investigate a crime and recommend to a prosecuter who should be charged and with what. If you are considered a witness and are subpeoned by a grand jury you have no choice, you have to talk or you will be charged with obstruction and criminal contempt. There is no invoking your 5th amendment rights to a grand jury as a witness, if you do the prosecutor normally grants you immunity to what you say (notice I said what YOU say, they can still charge you based on other evidence), once there is immunity to your testimony then you cannot invoke the 5th. Now if you're the 'target' of the grand jury you can invoke the 5th because obviously the prosecutor is not going to grant immunity. Susan McDougal is a good example of this, she was not the target of any investigation but she refused to testify to the grand jury and spent 18 months in prison because of it. Bottom line is when the govt wants info they get it.

If anything like this goes down you just say that you can't recall and with everyone asking so many questions you are now confused on what really happened.

[Kevsh]

Most is true, except the speedy trial. When you are accused of a crime that is not a big deal (ie you are not on tv, it's not murder, etc.) it is almost always in your best interest to drag it out as long as possible.

A good lawyer will draw up a list of items not turned over by the police, that will make the investigator have to actually do some work. They hate work. They are busy and all this time it takes for him/her to get what you are entitled to (full disclosure) works in your favour - including the possibility of having the charges dropped for improper delay.

But I would add one point onto this: Never, ever, under ANY circumstances call the police unless it is absolutely necessary to have them involved. Police make things messy and 99/100 of the time things would be worked out more easily if they were not involved.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by DarkJedi

Yes, you have to testify before the jury.
But you still don't have to say anything to the cops/investigators.

That is true, and depending on the situation one should not talk. But I will say this, it is never a good idea to get on the wrong side of federal investigators or a federal prosecutor, when they want something they get it. They have over a 90% conviction rate and if they think you are hiding something from them you most likely will find yourself in front of a grand jury which is never a good situation to be in whether you're just a witness or a target. You cannot have your Attorney present and anything said that is false, whether intentional or not can have great consequences. The feds are not someone you want to fuck with, they play on a completely different playing field than local or state govt. The best thing is to avoid any contact with them whatsoever.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Most of that is entirely good and true advice..


Basically you have to gauge if you are smarter than a team of investigators/cops/etc

I'll give you an example.

(although not a great one because both of them were stupid )

On c.o.p.s. i saw this episode on street patrol , they rolled up on a lady obviously buying some crack from a street dealer who was leaning in her car on the passenger side. When they rolled up the crackhead ran off. They searched her car and found a crack rock on the passenger side floor.

So anyways she says , gee i just stopped and asked directions and the guy was giving me directions when you pulled up behind me then he tossed something in the car and took off running.

So in the end they let her go, if she had said nothing they would have arrested her for possesion , taken her 2 kids away and she would never have gotten them back most likely.

COPS is the perfect example of how law enforcement gets away with bypassing peoples rights of search and seizure. It always amazes me that people consent to a search of their vehicle only to find that they have 20 pounds of weed in their trunk. The best thing to say if you're pulled over and a cop asks to do a search is "Are you asking or demanding?" the cop will say he is asking, you then respond with "Get a warrant, I'm in a hurry". The funny thing about COPS is EVERY search they show turns up something, they never show the searches that turn up nothing when the truth is only 20% of vehicle searches something is found. COPS is nothing more than law enforcement propaganda.

[buzzard]

The use of Silence in the right situation is the Ultimate Protector of Individual Rights

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

COPS is the perfect example of how law enforcement gets away with bypassing peoples rights of search and seizure. It always amazes me that people consent to a search of their vehicle only to find that they have 20 pounds of weed in their trunk. The best thing to say if you're pulled over and a cop asks to do a search is "Are you asking or demanding?" the cop will say he is asking, you then respond with "Get a warrant, I'm in a hurry". The funny thing about COPS is EVERY search they show turns up something, they never show the searches that turn up nothing when the truth is only 20% of vehicle searches something is found. COPS is nothing more than law enforcement propaganda.

I saw a classic one awhile ago. They were serving old arrest warrants , and went looking for this guy at his ex-girlfriends house. So they knock at the door and ask if he is there , and she says she hasnt seen him in months. So they ask if they can come in and look to make sure, and she is kind of upset and says no , but eventually she agrees to let them in and "just look for him and leave " , so they have like 6 cops barge in and they go thru the house , and i notice one cop looking through drawers and such , and im thinking hmm, then he lifts up her mattress and find a grand or so in $1 and $5 bills under her mattress.

So these cops say its "drug money" and took it. No warrant no nothing , they didnt even find paraphanelia in the house or anything to suggest it came from drugs. It was nuts i was shocked. And she even allowed them to search.

[Evil1]

just remember the phrase "i want a lawyer". that's your answer for everything a cop asks. get the lawyer, let them answer.

[nofx]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

COPS is the perfect example of how law enforcement gets away with bypassing peoples rights of search and seizure. It always amazes me that people consent to a search of their vehicle only to find that they have 20 pounds of weed in their trunk. The best thing to say if you're pulled over and a cop asks to do a search is "Are you asking or demanding?" the cop will say he is asking, you then respond with "Get a warrant, I'm in a hurry". The funny thing about COPS is EVERY search they show turns up something, they never show the searches that turn up nothing when the truth is only 20% of vehicle searches something is found. COPS is nothing more than law enforcement propaganda.

great post

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Evil1

just remember the phrase "i want a lawyer". that's your answer for everything a cop asks. get the lawyer, let them answer.

Damn straight.. Let someone else do the talking for you.