How I almost got a Criminal Record
blog.superuser.com
blog.superuser.com
This video lecture by officer George Bruch really opened my eyes:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#
That advice is only good if you are actually guilty (or if you get arrested).
By going to the police and cooperating, they ended up his side, and worked to figure out who the real person was.
If he has gone all lawyered up and refused to talk to them he would have essentially confirmed everything that they assumed they already knew. They would have arrested him, and only by the actual trial would the truth come out.
But that would not change the past, and he would have still spent time in jail.
If you are innocent cooperate as much as you possibly can - up until you are arrested. Once you are arrested, then, and only then, is it time to get a lawyer. Because if you are arrested then they think you are guilty and cooperating is not going to change their mind.
Don't ever interview with police without a lawyer present.
Before arrest they are much softer since you can leave at any time.
And Europe is no different.
The whole point of bringing the lawyer to any interview is to prevent you from saying something that could be twisted against you later. It doesn't matter if they're 'much softer' before they arrest you, anything you say at any time can and will still be used against you.
1. Figuring out what happened here, broadly. If you didn't do it, it truly seems like a good idea to help them with this function. It's easy to conceive of a situation where talking to them can help you here.
2. Collecting information to enable them to charge and testify against someone with. You really don't want to help them with this phase if the someone is you. Which it is. It's much better to deal with this area in court, where you get to see/evaluate/challenge their evidence before making statements.
The problem with talking to the police in this pre-arrest phase is that you don't know what objective they're trying to achieve. Truth is, they don't either. They get to decide retroactively if something you said to them at this phase will be used as evidence against you, as evidence against someone else, or just discarded.
Worse: in the US, what you said to them can never help you in court. "He told me he was at the scene of the crime" will help convict you, "He told me he he wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime" will be thrown out as here-say.
Given this situation, hindering objective #2 outweighs helping objective #1.
"If he has gone all lawyered up and refused to talk to them he would have essentially confirmed everything that they assumed they already knew. They would have arrested him, and only by the actual trial would the truth come out."
Obtaining a lawyer does not in any way imply guilt - you are exercising your right to an attorney and proper process of law. Watch the video.
"If you are innocent cooperate as much as you possibly can - up until you are arrested. Once you are arrested, then, and only then, is it time to get a lawyer. Because if you are arrested then they think you are guilty and cooperating is not going to change their mind."
No. If you are _accused_ you should get a lawyer. A seemingly innocent statement can be completely taken out of context, again watch the video. Also, you are being foolish if you think you can change an officer's mind about arresting you by talking to him. I'll say it again, whether you are guilty or not, the only words out of your mouth when you are accused of a crime should be "I'd like to speak with a lawyer"
> Obtaining a lawyer does not in any way imply guilt
To the court. But to the cops it most definitely does imply guilt. After arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before arrest it's not.
> whether you are guilty or not, the only words out of your mouth when you are accused of a crime should be "I'd like to speak with a lawyer"
That will help you in court, but doing that guarantees arrest. You may be released later, but I'd prefer to avoid the arrest in the first place.
There are legal limits to how long they can hold you for questioning without an arrest.
It's not grounds. They already have grounds or they wouldn't be talking to you in the first place. But if they are unsure (which they usually are) a lawyer will tip the balance toward definite arrest.
A good lawyer will get you out later sure. But he can't prevent the arrest in the first place.
> There are legal limits to how long they can hold you for questioning without an arrest.
If they are "holding you" you are basically arrested.
A good lawyer will get you out later sure. But he can't prevent the arrest in the first place.
Citation, please. A good lawyer will absolutely prevent arrest by stopping you from saying something that implicates yourself, regardless of whether you're innocent or not.
If they are "holding you" you are basically arrested.
Please expand.
In most legal jurisdictions, police can question you without arresting you -- but if you aren't under arrest, you are free to leave at any time. There is not usually any legal limit on how long such questioning can last -- it is a meeting between two consenting legal entities (you and the police) and either party is free to stop the questioning and leave. In some cases, your answers to the questions under this situation could bring you under reasonable suspicion and be grounds for arrest -- and a lawyer could help with that.
If you are being 'held' (meaning you aren't free to leave), then you are under arrest, essentially by definition.
I believe many civil liberties organisations explicitly asking something like 'am I free to leave?', forcing police to either acknowledge that you aren't under arrest and may leave if you wish, or commit to legally acknowledging you are under arrest, requiring them to justify it in court if you sue them.
If they had grounds to arrest you, the would simply arrest you and interrogate you while you're under arrest. If they are "merely talking" to you, they obviously don't have grounds to arrest you.
Especially when you're innocent, you can only make it worse by naively saying something that can be spun into implicating you.
The police are not your friend in this case.
Wow, horrible advice. Getting a lawyer tells the cops that you're not an idiot and they better do things correctly. Remember the whole reason the police are talking to you is to gather evidence. And who cares what the police think about a lawyer. No arrest warrant has been granted because someone got a lawyer.
After arrest it's worth it - they already think you are guilty. But before arrest it's not.
After an arrest while not too late, is much later than you should have gotten a lawyer. Getting a lawyer right away would likely have prevented any arrest unless there is actual real evidence against you. Skipping the lawyer means the police (profesional interrogators) get to talk to you for hours looking for anything incriminating. Not a good idea, since even an innocent person will have inconsistencies in any story told over and over and doubly so with someone trying to 'catch' them.
So please stop giving this horrible advice about not getting a lawyer. Remember, anytime the police are speaking to you they are gathering evidence and view you as a criminal. NEVER speak to the police without a lawyer.
Consider this. Many police interviews are still not video taped. If you and a cop have a discussion by yourselves and what was said comes into question who will the prosecutor, judge and jury believe? That reason alone means you always want a 3rd party present.
If you are innocent and don't speak to he police without a lawyer then fine, let them try to connect the dots.
Just always remember: with a lawyer you can get away scott free even if you did murder someone.
Prosecutor: Was there anything suspicious about the defendant's behavior?
Officer: Yes. He was surprisingly knowledgeable about computers and hacking, and was very quick to provide several reasons why it couldn't have been him, as if he had rehearsed ahead of time.
...
Prosecutor: Are the defendant's reasons plausible?
Expert Witness: No. It's true that the average person would have had difficulty performing those actions within five minutes. But it would be easily possible for a technically skilled user such as the defendant. (Proceeds to demonstrate a "simulation" of the hack in a few minutes).
And heaven help him if it turns out the victim was a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook; then they'd have him "lying" in the first thing he said to the police.
This is all true in court. But if you are innocent you don't want to be arrested in the first place. And the best way to avoid that is to talk to the copy, and not try to stonewall or hide things.
And, BTW, "surprisingly knowledgeable about computers and hacking" is no longer so surprising these days.
The reason the lawyer is important at the 'cops' stage is to prevent you from saying something stupid that will then be used against you at the 'court' stage.
Once you're at the 'court' stage, it's too late to hire a lawyer to prevent you from saying something stupid at the 'cops' stage, and the damage is already done.
If you are guilty, then sure, bring a lawyer. But if you are innocent you don't have a lot to worry about. Not zero, certainly, but not a lot.
You have to weigh two things: How likely you are to be found guilty when you are not (because of what you say) vs. how likely you are to convince the cops you have nothing to hide and not get arrested in the first place.
I think talking to the cops is more likely to get you released than it is to get you found guilty when you are actually innocent.
To be clear, the only reason I'm even digging in here is because I worry that someone might actually take your advice and wind themselves up in jail.
You have to weigh two things: How likely you are to be found guilty when you are not (because of what you say) vs. how likely you are to convince the cops you have nothing to hide and not get arrested in the first place.
You're simply not in a position to weigh either of those two things: you don't have all of the information that the cops have about the investigation, and you have no idea how they might twist your words down the road.
The advice you are giving in this thread is downright terrible. You clearly don't understand some very basic legal concepts, and everyone would be better off doing the exact opposite of what you suggest.
There's being wrong, then there's a refusal to admit you might be wrong that is so stubborn and adamant to the point of being malicious.
Yea. If someone took his horrid advice and went to jail could they sue him for malpractice? It would be a hard case to win since you're taking advice from the a random person on the internet, but things at least that strange have happened before.
google "Steven Linscott" as an example[1]. He dreamed he saw a woman be murdered, told the police about and ended up serving 3 years of a 40 year sentence for murder.
[1] http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php
It's a huge risk. Many cases are tried purely on circumstantial evidence. Wrong place, wrong time happens more than anyone would like to admit. Cops and prosecutors are human and because of that they make mistakes, have egos, and can care less about the truth and more about convictions.
Guilt/innocence has nothing to do with needing a lawyer. The lawyer is there to make sure the police do their job correctly and that you don't incriminate yourself.
I, like the other responses, cannot stress enough what my lawyer friends have told me. NEVER speak to the police without a lawyer. Period.
Trivial anecdote: a number of years ago, I had a couple of cops come to my door, saying that they'd had a report of someone in the neighborhood shooting a BB gun at a car. They wanted to know if I saw anything. I hadn't, but volunteered that I had on my refrigerator the names and phone numbers of the rest of the neighborhood, and seeing that list might save them some legwork. I invited them into the house to get the list.
Once I got into the house with them, I remembered that I had just been target shooting with a friend the previous afternoon, and I had a bunch of spent shotgun shells still sitting on the table (if you don't know, the shot in a shotgun shell of the appropriate size, are BBs). Now I realize that I've actually invited them to look at circumstantial evidence that might implicate me.
Luckily, they didn't notice, or didn't put the pieces together, so they didn't even question me about it. But I sure wish I'd had a lawyer whispering in my ear when I invited them in the house.
Also, better to have a lawyer with you advising whether you should answer such and such question. Remember, the police are not your friends, as much as they would like to make it seem that way, they want to charge someone with a crime and close the case, everybody says their innocent.
It's real tough as lawyers are very expensive, and the police, feds, etc. will make it seem as if you don't need one, lies, all lies. At most, say it wasn't you, I was at such and such, any further questions, refer to my lawyer.
Cops do not need proof to arrest someone, they simply need to be suspicious. You want them to not be suspicious of you, and the easiest way is not to act guilty.
I'd suggest taking the time to speak to someone in law enforcement about how difficult it actually is to perform arrests. I think you would be surprised.
>By going to the police and cooperating, they ended up his side, and worked to figure out who the real person was.
That is incredibly, unsafely naive. I wish I were still naive.
Hang on just a minute - you're saying that only the guilty take legal advice? That's crazy! I wouldn't go along to a sales pitch without a decent salesman, why should the law be any different?
If you are innocent cooperate as much as you possibly can - up until you are arrested.
By then it's too late; try googling "Miscarriage of justice." It's not unknown for the police to frame suspects - if you go along lawyered-up, the chances of the police fabricating evidence from your confusion will be greatly reduced.
A cop's job is not to catch bad guys, it's to solve cases. If they are having a hard time solving a case and some naive person walks in and explains everything then they've just found someone with opportunity. Now they just need a plausible motive and their work is done.
EDIT: Spelling fixes
I found both to be compelling.
In fact, I would say in the police it's worse as they learn to dissasociate with people's problems since they see them every day.
Case in point: We were involved in a car crash. The guy crashed in to the side of us and span us 360 degrees. Immediately after the crash I checked on my wife and she said she was ok (I think she was in shock, though, later she had to be cut out of the car, needed oxygen, and was taken to hospital). I got out to see if the people in the other car were ok and saw them try and drive off, but their car was too damaged and they just drove into a few parked cars. I had a clear view of this. When the policeman arrived that night to take our statement it was clear he'd had a long day for whatever reason. I told him I saw the other car attempt to drive off.
"Are you sure, sir?"
"Yes. There were other people there, didn't they say the same thing?"
"No."
"There must have been damage to the other parked cars, though, what about that?"
"The only damage was your car and their car. Remember, you'd just been in a crash, perhaps you're misremembering?"
"But I could've sworn...."
"Are you sure you wish to pursue this? No one else reported this."
"Er, ok, er...."
It was only many months later, when we received the witness accounts from the insurance company, that we realised the witnesses said the same thing as me. Neither the insurance company not the police cared.
Maybe there's an extra form to fill in if someone tries to drive off.
Would people refusing to talk to the police actually make catching criminals harder? Perhaps. But that just means the legal system needs important simplifications. Also, the balance of power needs to shift in favor of the citizen.
So it seems like a good idea to play nice and make them be on your side.
I have forgotten the contents of the video in question, though, and I live in Europe. Might watch the video again.
In Europe maybe, but not in the US. You are not a cop so they will never be "on your side". They have cases they are pressured to close, so anyone coming in volunteering information is also showing that they know.
If you make a profile of a perpetrator of a given crime what traits will he have? First of all he/she will know all the details of what happened (since they did it). Someone who wasn't there and wasn't involved wont. So if you witness a crime and describe it to the police you've just proven that you fit that part of the profile. That would automatically make you the number one lead if they have nothing better.
And who knows? When I was a kid I did something I shouldn't have. When I saw a teacher was about to discover it I quickly "informed him" of what some bad child had done. I thought this would divert suspicion away from myself. That person going to the police and being "helpful" may actually be trying to divert attention from themselves, try to figure out how much the cops have figured out, etc. The cops can't know so the only logical thing to do is peruse the different leads according to which one is closest to the likely suspect.
And I'm not even describing the cops doing anything bad like framing people (which isn't unheard of).
That's like saying that a determined thief can always break in, so why bother locking your doors?
I can't explain it better than that. I might be wrong, too, when it comes to dealing with the police.
We don't get letters from the police mentioning that we're a criminal suspect. Usually such notifications come in the form of a door kick or finding a magnetic tube on the underside of our car.
Original german article: http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Unschuldig-unter-Verdacht-291...
and translation: http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl...
This is really scary. With the little the police knows about IT, there's no way you could prove yourself innocent... even in the case of an accident like this.
I don't even want to think about cases where hackers would plant an IP address in the logs on purpose to get someone into jail.
First reaction: AWESOME. I won't see any spam about that in the feed (which I rarely view anyway).
Second thought: This cannot end well. It's so easy to spoof stuff that a lot of innocent people will have to deal with similar situations before the law gets repealed (if it gets repealed, most likely it'd just stop being enforced).
Unfortunately, most people would never think about how bad it could end, just about how people won't be annoying them on facebook.
I think you'll find that to be the case anywhere that has laws about "computer crimes" - the laws are usually phrased as gaining access to or manipulating systems or data for which you have no authorisation.
While I'm glad this guy got his situation cleared so easily, I wonder how you would defend yourself in this situation. Police ask telecom, "who has this address?" Telecom says: "this person has that address" (while failing to mention who else has that address). How would you refute such charges, since it would be true that you did have that ip address in this hypothetical situation?
Isn't this sort of obvious? If I'm charged with a crime I know I didn't commit, of course I'm going to tell them there's been a mistake.