Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

A good piece of advice I got from a lawyer once:

If you are ever arrested, don't say a word especially if you are innocent.

The cops never arrest anyone unless they think they're guilty, so anything you say -- as the saying goes in America -- can and will be used against you. It'll be filtered through that cognitive bias.

Part two of his advice was: even if you are guilty of something, don't assume you're being busted for what you're guilty of. (So again keep your mouth shut.)

He related a case of someone busted for trafficking drugs. (Turns out he was.) He wound up being charged with murder. (He didn't do that!) Apparently someone had been killed in a way that made the police suspect it was drug-related, and there was circumstantial evidence linking the suspect to the scene, so...

View on HN

Obligatory link to the "Don't talk to the police" video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

It's one of the most profoundly revealing videos I've ever watched on the Internet, certainly the only (non-movie) video I've watched for 50 minutes. But I can't think of many other 50 minute periods in my adult life where my mind was so thoroughly changed from beginning to end on something related to politics and civics.

Just a question re. this video - how relevant is it in non-US jurisdictions?

Does most of the advice still apply for, say, the UK?

IANAL of course, but it would depend on what the courts have ruled on non-incrimination. But in terms of law-enforcement, it's hard to imagine that the possible errors/misunderstandings that the professor describes here would also not apply to any law enforcement bureaucracy (the tendency for authorities to mistakenly remember things, and the intense pressure not to admit mistakes, to the detriment of the accused)

laws differ, but police getting people to talk is pretty universal across the world - get a confession, case closed, less work to do. he's innocent? who cares, that's justice work now.

> If you are ever arrested, don't say a word especially if you are innocent.

In the UK (which is where the OA is set) we don't really have that option. The police will warn you when arrested:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

So basically, you're required to mount your own ad-hoc defence when arrested, or "it may harm your defence" in court. This when you might be under extreme emotional stress from the arrest, or the incident which led to it. When your state of mind might be borderline rational or worse. Effectively, we do not have a right to silence.

Surely that questioning has to take place with a lawyer present though? The police can't question you (or get you to say anything) before you've had access to legal advice.... right..?

Good luck getting legal aid for a criminal defense in the UK, is all I can say ...

Nope, the police can start questioning right away. You can decline to answer without a lawyer, which isn't an admission of guilt and cannot be used as evidence of guilt, then the solicitor can council you on what you can and can't say. However, if during the questioning even with a lawyer present you omit something and use it in court, the prosecution is allowed to say "Well, this is a new piece of evidence" and use it against you however they can, or ask for it to be disallowed.

I think. It's been a while since I looked at the strict policy and regular interpretations. Police don't have to wait for a solicitor though, that's up to you and you have to ask for one straight off. If you're in the UK and you are arrested, be very polite with them, ask for a solicitor and wait, even if you know you're innocent. Actually, especially if you know you're innocent.

Bloody hell!

It's worth while taking the time to look up what rights you have under arrest etc: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/

Who pays for the lawyer/solicitor in the UK? Do I have to, even though I'm innocent?

You have to, unless you want to use the duty solicitor who's a free resource. The duty solicitor should be perfectly fine for most situations unless you really actually are guilty, or you think you've been stitched up, to use TV crime drama parlance.

> The duty solicitor should be perfectly fine for most situations unless you really actually are guilty

But should you choose to use your own solicitor, it may adversely harm your defense, because innocent people use the duty solicitor...

Sure they can, you can even question people without a lawyer present in the states. There's a woman in jail on death row - because a cop that's a known perjurer claimed that she'd broken down and confessed to murdering her kid to him

http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/14/the-presumption-of-truth/

You know the UK doesn't have a constitution in the same sense as the USA? During the recent undeclared civil war in the UK (Northern Ireland), there were many suspensions of civil rights.

Misleading. Substantive protection of rights in the UK is, overall, as strong or stronger as in the US (weaker in some areas, stronger in others). That the sources of those rights (centuries of common law tradition, ECHR & HRA rights, the EU, and more) aren't a convenient single document with the words "The Constitution" at the top doesn't mean they don't exist.

As far as I can tell, it's almost never the case that not saying anything prior to talking to a lawyer will actually harm you defence, despite what the police may say.

It's different in the UK. If something comes up after the fact that you should have told. See "facts later relied on": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and...

From that link:

> no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor

I would be shocked if they could actually use you refusing to talk without legal advice against you

They can't. In the UK you are usually asked by the desk sergeant if you want a solicitor before they will question you.

Of course, you can be questioned while not being under arrest but again, you can ask for a lawyer before they question you.

I can't think a police officer could say in court: "He refused to be questioned before we arrested him" because you're not under any obligation to talk to the police in day-to-day life.

In England you say something like "I am glad to answer your questions, but I will only do so with a lawyer present".

In eloquent praise of the fifth amendment:[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Back in the time the Inqusiton started their trails by asking "Do you know of what you are charged". A lot of crimes came out that way.

Sadly a lot of people visiting HN live in places where the police think of the safety of body and limb of the suspect as a optional recommendation. So keep you mouth shut may not be that easy.

Hah. So that's why they always ask "Do you know why I pulled you over?" ;-)

Exactly. That's also why they ask "Do you know how fast you were going?". It's less burden on them to provide calibration charts, etc. in court. Also, the only good answer to "you don't have anything illegal in here you don't want me to find, do you?" is "you do not have my consent to search the vehicle, and if you're going to search it anyway I would like your supervising officer to be present".

Depending on the country they do have the right to ask you to show them first aid kit, fire extinguisher and spare tire. Since they are usually hold in the trunk of the car, and the tire on the bottom this is as a good as a search.

> Depending on the country they do have the right to ask you to show them first aid kit, fire extinguisher and spare tire.

What? Who carries all that around? Is this a good reason to drive around on your spare tire, so they can see it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com