Hacker News Reader

Comment by wonder_er | Hacker News Reader

Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_.

It's less of a problem that police lie if everyone adopts the very clear advice given by every legal professional:

> Never, ever, talk to police.*

* You can give them your name, and if they ask "what are you doing", a tolerable answer, but any further questions are to be met with "I have been advised to never speak with police, and I can answer no further questions."

Here's an entertaining lecture on the topic, for anyone not convinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s

And he wrote a very short (single-sitting) book titled: "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent": https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/...

Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.

If you're reading this and about to hit the "reply" button explaining why I am wrong, will you please, please say in that comment if you watched _any_ of the lecture by Regent Law Professor James Duane?

View on HN

The problem with never talk to the police is that they can mess with you more or less with impunity. They can beat you and not worry about retribution from the judicial system. They can arrest you in which the only charge is resisting arrest.

Even if you are treated humanely when you refuse to talk to the police there is the very real possibility they will investigate your life. Given that there are civil liberties lawyers who claim that everyone commits felonies on a regular basis does one really want a big investigation into their life [1]?

The power of the state to mess up your life is such that this advice might not be applicable if the cop you are dealing with is a jerk.

[1] http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-toda...

> The problem with never talk to the police is that they can mess with you more or less impunity.

Yes! They can and will mess with you. But if you think talking to them will _reduce the chances_ of them messing you, many legal experts would disagree.

Talking to them gives them additional avenues by with they might claim that you committed the crime, you're guilty, and they get to `solved_crimes_this_month += 1`.

It's all risk mitigation.

They might treat you illegally and immorally, for sure. They're not _less_ likely to do this if you consent to "a conversation", they're _more_ likely to do this.

So, again, don't talk to police without a lawyer present.

When you're lawyer gets on scene, he'll say "don't talk to them", so you'll continue to _not talk to them._

Many folks on HN that live in the USA, are statistically likely to not have particularly bad interactions with the police, but that means we have a chance (or even obligation) to normalize self-protective behaviors that persons who are not quite as (white|male|upper class| privileged) as we are might suffer repercussions for exercising.

I.E. if it spreads that "privileged people don't talk to police" then "marginalized people not talking to police" are less likely to suffer abuse from said police.

I should state that I had in mind police interactions similar to traffic stops. Boldly proclaiming you don't consent to a search or you refuse to answer questions can lead to a tough time for you. I think in general one should strive for de-escalation, and being overly compliant in the above type interaction. Once you are arrested then definitely assert your rights. It's unfortunate that police powers are such that we can't assert out rights without fear of retribution.

I strongly disagree with your last sentence. I believe cops will take advantage of those who can't afford lawyers as long as there are no real consequences to them.

Oh, yeah, even with traffic stops, you're totally right. Don't "boldly proclaim" anything. Be humble, even as you keep this in mind.

I've been asked at traffic stops at least 3x, by police:

> You don't have any drugs in here, right? Don't mind if I take a look?

What do you say?

> Nope, no drugs!

Great, you've consented to a search.

> No, officer, I don't consent to a search of my vehicle.

They might still search, but now their search is without probable cause _and_ your consent, which means even if they _do_ find drugs in your car, your lawyer will be able to spring you easily.

Cops do take advantage of those who cannot afford lawyers, but a way you can set yourself up for success is guide the interaction in such a way that a lawyer would have no problem proving the cops violated their own guidelines.

A calm tone won't necessarily make the cop calm, but a bold/agressive tone will almost certainly make the cop respond in kind. When I decline a request from a cop, I make sure to do it with a sugared tongue. The cop isn't entitled to the 'sorry' in "No, sorry", but that little indignity might make the difference so I'm willing to suffer it.

I don't know if it's a good idea in general, but I've gotten good results from even more flowery language -- "I'm sure we'd be great friends in other circumstances, but while you're on duty I need a lawyer present for any further discussions." Anecdotally, not taking the effort to reaffirm that it's nothing against them personally tends to lead to a lot of pushback.

I've never tried going that far, but once a cop looked offended when I said he couldn't search my car, like I had impugned his honor, so I volunteered the explaination 'It's nothing personal, just a matter of principle." That seemed to satisfy him.

They will just detain you and bring in a dog, who will "find" probable cause.

Sometimes there isn’t a dog available. Sometimes the police have to leave on a higher priority call. Sometimes the dog doesn’t alert. Sometimes your lawyer can get the dog alerting thrown out based on other factors.

What’s the risk of just letting them search? Sometimes you can be held for 90 days because the cops mistake donut frosting for meth.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/16/558147669...

Rights aren't really useful or meaningful if exercising them causes problems. What we should strive for is someone refusing to have their car searched without any problems.

Which is an avenue your future lawyer can explore in your attempts to contest the charges against you and/or whatever action you're trying to bring against their conduct.

If you just consent to a search, those avenues are basically closed. Can't contest if they had probable cause to search, if the dog was trained correctly, etc if you agree to the search.

> They might still search, but now their search is without probable cause _and_ your consent, which means even if they _do_ find drugs in your car, your lawyer will be able to spring you easily.

There's an old saying: "you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

I'd just like to point out that the ability to recover quickly and easily after being wrongfully arrested is a privilege. If you are e.g. driving to a job that you can't afford to lose, it may be that avoiding a night in jail for a wrongful arrest is more important than your eventual principled triumph over the system.

Especially given that neither is guaranteed. Maybe the cop decides you're not worth the trouble and lets you go. Maybe they plant drugs and lie that you did consent to a search, and a jury believes them. Maybe your overworked public defender advises you to just take a plea. There are no silver bullets here, and the most likely bad outcome is entirely situational.

Sometimes I've resolved the situation by not saying a word.

Sometimes I've resolved the situation by saying many words, very angrily.

"""When you're lawyer gets on scene"""

How does one actually _get_ a lawyer on the scene? If I haven't been arrested, am I eligible for a public defender? Do I need to already have one on retainer? I recognize the value of having one, but if a police officer came to my door right now, I don't know what to do if I don't already have a lawyer.

This is extremely specific to jurisdiction; I would hope that anyone who responds with advice here will clearly state which jurisdiction they are referring to.

> This is extremely specific to jurisdiction;

In the US, a person’s rights are NOT specific with regard to jurisdiction.

One’s rights are enshrined in what are colloquially referred to as Miranda Rights (issued as a Miranda Warning upon arrest) and they protect all people detained by the police in the US. [0]

> You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

> Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

> If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

> If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

> Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? [1]

[0] http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

While true, only ~1/2 of HN readers are from the US so it’s still very dependent on their actual jurisdiction.

If you aren't arrested, then you aren't charged, and so no, you have no right to an attorney. Police can detain you on site for a little while in order to make the arrest/no arrest decision. At any time you can give police an ultimatum: am I free to go? If the answer is yes, you're done - say nothing more. If the answer is no, you can keep pestering them with questions until you get clarity on how you can or if you can get out of there, but that isn't the same as answering their questions.

> How does one actually _get_ a lawyer on the scene?

General advice for the US here, as provided by a lawyer friend after a beer or two pre-Covid.

First, you have to know if you are in custody. This is not as easy as you may think[1].

You say: "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"

If yes, leave, and find a lawyer. If the answer is no (or non-committal), you are under custody of the police. You will likely be forced to disclose your name but that and maybe your address should be what you disclose[2].

Now you need to make it clear that you are invoking your right to remain silent. Current jurisprudence around Miranda[3] makes it clear that is something you must actively invoke. It is not enough to remain silent, that will not stop an interrogation.

You say: "I will not answer any questions until I have a lawyer present".

Those two statements + your name are all you say. That is it.

As far as getting a lawyer, you'll have an opportunity to contact one after the interview has been stopped. If you need a public defender you can ask for one at that time but you'll likely be better off contacting your state bar association and asking for a referral.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

You're not talking to the cops. So either, nothing happens, or they arrest you.

If they arrest you, you inform them you request counsel. That's the Sixth Amendment. Invoking the Fifth doesn't get you a lawyer, but saying you request a public defender will speed things up.

> they can mess with you more or less with impunity

a.k.a you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride

You're right about this. In more adversarial cases it's probably best to tell the police that you will talk to them, but only in a formal interview with your lawyer present (even if this isn't true, and you don't want to talk to them, and you don't have a lawyer and don't intend to get one). Telling them this, though, doesn't give them as much license to get nasty.

Most of the "felony a day" things are really critiques of overbroad laws, especially at the federal level. "Honest Services" laws were a big part of that narrative when federal prosecutors were using it in public integrity cases. It's mostly myth.

The issue with unnecessarily interacting with police is that you never know what is actually happening. It's like dealing with a salesmen, they are trained do control situations and question people every day.

In many circumstances you have nothing to add, nothing to gain, and you incur risk that something you say or do makes an unfortunate connection. Nobody is going to beat or arrest you for saying "no thanks".

I keep seeing the "everyone commits multiple felonies a day" quote, but all the examples quoted are of people destroying evidence, dealing in protected goods and so on. Are there any actual good examples of ordinary law-abiding citizens going about their mundane daily lives while also inadvertently committing multiple felonies?

I have no idea and I suspect the answer is that most people don't actually commit several felonies per day. However, the point is that there are lots of laws that I'm not aware of and I may have inadvertently broken one of them. I'm certain if a government agency really wanted to put me in jail they could for quite a long time even if they don't get a conviction. It's sad that this is the state of affairs that exist in the U.S.

> belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature

But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior? I think that what people are asking is just that the standards be applied in both directions.

> Do. Not. Talk. To. Police.

Agreed on that point, and yes, I have watched some (but not all) of James Duane's stuff.

It is indeed illegal for you to lie to them, and many things you might construe as "not a lie" they could construe as "a lie", so yes, you get jail time for something they're doing in the course of their job.

The standards _don't_ apply in both directions. Any interaction with the police is inherently imbalanced.

They get to stand wherever they want (often in groups), in body armor, with guns and handcuffs and the permission to arrest you (or shoot you!) at any point in time, if you say/do the right mix of things.

If you've _never told them anything_ or _agreed to sit in a room with them_, you're much less likely to be prosecuted for lying to them.

> Officer, I do not talk to police.

If they arrest you:

> Officer, I do not talk to police.

etc. You might spend a night or a month in jail, but it's better than 5 years for a murder you didn't commit, but the officer was pushing hard to get one more conviction before closing out FY2021

While practical advice for the current state of affairs, it is irrelevant here as the whole point here is that we don't like the current state of affairs: they shouldn't get to lie to people from their position of authority and asymmetric requirements, and if it can be proven that they lied to the suspect it should be something a lawyer can use to invalidate testimony (which might be brutal for the ability to convict the person, leading to police being trained to not do it, etc.).

There's a spectrum of dishonesty and different ethical considerations. "Don't lie" sounds like a no-brainer, but there is alot of complexity baked in.

Is the issue the use of deception to investigate crime or making specific types of dishonest statements?

FWIW, my direct and immediate issues are when the system lies to people about the way the system works. The power imbalance is already ridiculously high when someone has you in custody--momentarily, temporarily, or permanently--that it seems entirely unconscionable to me that the system then further gets to lie to you about your status or what will happen to you next.

Whether or not you can lie to the police depends on your jurisdiction.

In most countries, there are laws against self-incrimination. If you have the "right to remain silent", like in the US, it may be illegal to lie to them. If you don't have that right, then you have the right to lie, because otherwise, you could be incriminating yourself.

IANAL, but it is a complex topic.

In the US it’s illegal to lie to a federal officer. The Martha Stewart offense.

>> But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior?

I have been having serious issues around this notion that everyone lies 500 times a day - that it normal and super common. I think I'm aware when I lie, and it usually amounts to something more like not sharing my full opinion so not to hurt feelings. But even that isn't common. Do most people really just make up bullshit all day long?

I don't take a position on that, but if it's not common, then why are we treating it like a big deal to require police officers to tell the truth to us?

My premise isn't that lying is either essentially human or completely wrong -- my premise is that police officers are humans like the rest of us and should be able to handle at least the same restrictions as everybody else. If I'm expected to know the entire law, they shouldn't be able to hide behind ignorance as an excuse either. If I'm expected to tell the truth, they should tell the truth as well. If I'm expected to deescalate tense situations, they should have the same expectations.

A cop should be at least as well trained and conscientious as a civilian (and hopefully more trained since this stuff is actually their job).

> Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.

My wife watches a lot of those crime drama shows, and the defendants who simply refuse to participate in the charade of the interrogation room harassment are the ones that walk.

There's a lot of awareness now about the dramatically-increased "interaction" between police and African Americans. What I can't understand is why -- given the decades of "heightened relations" between them -- this mantra hasn't become ingrained in the collective consciousness.

> Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_.

Not sure why you'd think that, the police isn't allowed to lie or deceive the suspect in Sweden like they are in USA.

Sweden, lying in interrogations is not allowed:

https://advokaternas.se/2020/06/07/far-polisen-ljuga-i-forho...

USA, lying in interrogations is allowed:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/05/jn

Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".

The latter advice is valid, and I agree with it. The change in law, with both sanctions (against officers and departments transacting such conduct) and exclusions on all evidence and testimony resulting, would be vastly more effective.

Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

> Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".

I don't think the legal sanctions would actually _do_ anything, because legal sanctions _never_ do anything. Cops still commit crimes, however you define "commit crimes", _every day_ with zero penalty.

So, any argument that says "we should ask police to stop lying, and if they lie, we'll write them up!" sounds like a non-starter.

On the flip side, we don't need 100% awareness of "don't talk to police", we just need awareness to trickle into the percentage of society that has encounters with police every year.

Supposedly, there's 700k police officers in the USA right now.[0]

Each of those probably interacts with at least 5 people a day, but there's very much a 80:20 principle in _multiple_ contacts with police in a year.

So, I'd settle with 200mm people in the USA knowing this principle. That's a measly 2/3rds of the US population. A good and entertaining music video that highlighted this fact would get us half-way there in one fell swoop.

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enf...

The proposed remedy isn't to punish the lying cops, but to make the confessions obtained that way inadmissible.

It's both, though yes, far more the latter: make any evidence or testimony derived from lying inadmissible.

Taking away the value of a tactic should be more effective than creating a punishment based on it.

> "and I can answer no further questions."

Of course you CAN answer further questions since you can speak. Thus you have just lied to a law enforcement officer.

Ha! Proved my point exactly. James Duane has specific recommended phrases.

Maybe the use of:

"and I will answer no further questions"

would keep me out of jail!

I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture but I don't need to know this blanket Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police. advice is absurd. For example: What if I need to report a crime?

> I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture

Then do.

If you have this much trouble with context, I would highly suggest hiring an attorney before commenting on the Internet.

One time a neighbor knocked on my door. She was concerned. "Can you hear those children screaming?" Stepping outside with her I found I could, just, maybe a few hundred metres away. "We better call the cops" I said. The cops arrived within minutes. It turned out that the local school had invited a farmer to bring some lambs to the school and we could hear the kids squealing in delight. The cops, my neighbor and I had a good laugh about it. This is one of many times I've talked to cops in my life and I've invariably had pleasant and good natured conversations. Perhaps I should mention I don't live in the USA.

> Perhaps I should mention I don't live in the USA

As a non-US resident: indeed you're having a much different conversation than everybody here. This advice also makes some sense in other countries, but this article (NY times), the advice ("don't talk to police"), the lecture, the context (eg Miranda) are all pretty US-specific. In my country the defendant is legally allowed to lie and the police is not!

What country is this?

Sweden for example. Not sure why you'd have a lower bar for the police than for civilians. Police are professionals and should act like it. Arrested civilians are in a stressful situation and should be given leniency.

Or do you really think the current situation in USA where the best advice is "Don't talk to the police ever!" really helps with solving crimes? If people instead trusted that police aren't allowed to lie, and that what they say can't be used against them even if it doesn't add up, they would be much more cooperative with the police and hence help solve crime better.

I was just asking for an example. Sweden is one. Now I know.

Sorry, I thought you were on the "How would police do their job without lying crowd" and assumed such police forces didn't exist.

Anyway most of Europe works that way. Not sure why the culture of the police in US is so different.

If you need to report a crime, do so. Get your crime report and claim on your insurance and move on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com